Friday, October 26, 2007
The Postmodern Eclipse of Evil -- Be Advised . . . and Be Afraid
One of the most harrowing features of modern thought is the reluctance to speak honestly about evil. The cause of this discomfort with the category of evil is understandable, of course. When belief in God recedes, confidence in moral judgment inevitably recedes with that belief.
This is brought to life in the pages of The New York Times Magazine in the form of a film review. The film is a documentary about the French lawyer Jacques Verges -- a man who has defended some of the worst criminals in France, including Klaus Barbie and Carlos "the Jackal." He also had long friendships with murderous dictators such as Cambodia's Pol Pot and China's Chairman Mao.
Reviewer Daphne Merkin seems to understand the difficulty posed by the film and its subject:
What does evil -- a term that came into general use only in the 15th century, originally referring to the overstepping of proper limits -- look like these days, when so many of us are wary of reductive terms, unsure of our own convictions and easily persuaded of the moral relativism of our values? (The Oxford English Dictionary notes that the word is "little used in modern colloquial English.") Does it have a particular smell, like teen spirit? Does it come wearing a hood, as in the movies? Or, again, does it look like you and me, sitting over dinner and enjoying a glass of vintage Bordeaux?
The syndrome cited here -- a reluctance to use "reductive terms" -- reflects the moral discomfort and uncertainty of the age. How do we come to terms with humanity without using the word "evil" and meaning it?
Merkin continues:
For much of history, when an ironclad trust in a divine maker still prevailed (however many plagues or earthquakes he might have arranged), the question of "evil" was contained by one of two rationales: that people deserved it because of wicked behavior or that it was part of a larger, unknowable celestial plan. That attitude, gullible as it now seems, had the benefit of keeping this particular epistemological dilemma outside the human purview. It held steady until the emergence of a philosophical tradition that, beginning with Immanuel Kant's questioning of God's pivotal position and reaching an apogee of unbelief with the arrival of Nietzsche, put the concept of evil right in our laps. As Susan Neiman says in "Evil in Modern Thought," from the Enlightenment on there have been two views: "The one, from Rousseau to Arendt, insists that morality demands that we make evil intelligible. The other, from Voltaire to Jean Améry, insists that morality demands that we don't."
That is a succinct, if reductionistic, explanation for what happened. The great philosophical turn was away from a fixed understanding of evil as an objective concept and toward evil (and all moral judgment) as a matter of subjectivity and context. Gone was the idea of evil as an act that opposed God's law and offended God's righteousness.
Gone with those beliefs was any confidence in moral judgment. As Merkin suggests, postmoderns are more like Neville Chamberlain, trying to negotiate with evil, than like Winston Churchill, determined to oppose it by force when necessary.
The maker of the film, Barbet Schroeder, refuses to take a position in the film, resisting moral judgment. Indeed, he calls Verges a "perverse and decadent aesthete." There is something particularly chilling about reducing evil to aesthetics.
The frightening specter we now face is of a postmodern world that is losing the last vestiges of confidence in moral judgment. Be advised . . . and be afraid.
Sheep, Wolves, Snakes, and Doves
By John Piper @www.desiringGod.org
Read this article on our website.
Matthew 10:16
“Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.”
When Jesus sends us to bear witness to him in the world, he does not send us out as dominant and strong, but as weak and seemingly defenseless in ourselves. The only reason I say “seemingly” defenseless is that it is possible that, since “all authority” belongs to Jesus, he might intervene and shut the mouths of the wolves, like he did the mouths of the lions that surrounded Daniel.
But that does not appear to be his intention. The text goes on to say that the “wolves” will deliver the “sheep” to courts, and flog them, and drag them before governors, and have parents and children put to death, and hate them, and persecute them from town to town, and malign them, and kill them (Matthew 10:17-31). So it is clear that when Jesus says he is sending us as sheep in the midst of wolves, he means that we will be treated the way wolves treat sheep.
But, even though sheep are proverbially stupid—which, on the face of it, is what it looks like when they walk toward wolves and not away from them—Jesus counters that notion by saying “be wise as serpents.” So vulnerability, not stupidity, is the point of calling us sheep. Be like snakes, not sheep, when it comes to being smart. I take that to mean that snakes are quick to get out of the way. They go under rock.
So, yes, go among wolves and be vulnerable as you preach the gospel, but when they lunge at you, step aside. When they open their mouths, don’t jump in. And not only that, be as innocent as doves. That is, don’t give them any legitimate reason to accuse you of injustice or immorality. Keep your reputation as clean as you can.
So both the snake-intelligence and the dove-innocence are both designed to keep the sheep out of trouble. Jesus does not mean for us to get ourselves into as much difficulty as possible. He means: Risk your lives as vulnerable, non-combative, sheep-like, courageous witnesses, but try to find ways to give your witness in a way that does not bring down unnecessary persecution.
This brings us to the dilemma that has faced many faithful witnesses: When do you flee from danger? And when do you embrace it and witness through it? In 1684, John Bunyan published a book called Seasonable Counsels, or Advice to Sufferers. In it, he addressed this question: When does a sufferer fly (from danger) and when does he stand (and suffer the danger)? Bunyan knew how to answer for himself. He had four children, one of them blind, and he chose to remain in prison for twelve years rather than promise not to preach the gospel. How does he answer the question for others? May we try to escape?
Thou mayest do in this as it is in thy heart. If it is in thy heart to fly, fly; if it be in thy heart to stand, stand. Anything but a denial of the truth. He that flies, has warrant to do so; he that stands, has warrant to do so. Yea, the same man may both fly and stand, as the call and working of God with his heart may be. Moses fled, Ex. 2:15; Moses stood, Heb. 11:27. David fled, 1 Sam. 19:12; David stood, 1 Sam. 24:8. Jeremiah fled, Jer. 37:11-12; Jeremiah stood, Jer. 38:17. Christ withdrew himself, Luke 19:10; Christ stood, John 18:1-8. Paul fled, 2 Cor. 11:33; Paul stood, Act 20:22-23. . . .
There are few rules in this case. The man himself is best able to judge concerning his present strength, and what weight this or that argument has upon his heart to stand or fly. . . . Do not fly out of a slavish fear, but rather because flying is an ordinance of God, opening a door for the escape of some, which door is opened by God’s providence, and the escape countenanced by God’s Word, Matt. 10:23. . . .
If, therefore, when thou hast fled, thou art taken, be not offended at God or man: not at God, for thou art his servant, thy life and thy all are his; not at man, for he is but God’s rod, and is ordained, in this, to do thee good. Hast thou escaped? Laugh. Art thou taken? Laugh. I mean, be pleased which [how]soever things shall go, for that the scales are still in God’s hand. (p. 726)
Let us be slow to judge the missionary who chooses death rather than escape. And let us be slow to judge the missionary who chooses life. Rather, let us give ourselves daily to the disciplines of word-saturation and obedience which transform us by the renewing of our minds that we may prove what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect in the moment of absolute urgency (Romans 12:2).
Guarding the Deposit
“O Timothy, guard the deposit entrusted to you…”
One of my favorite television programs is Antiques Roadshow. The program affords people the opportunity to present their antique possessions—whether furniture, paintings, toys, or anything else— and to have them appraised by some of the world’s foremost experts in antiquities. For every episode the producers single out ten or fifteen items and show an expert providing a detailed description and valuation of the item. Each section closes with the expert telling the owner just what the item is worth. It is always amusing to see eyes pop out or to see people jump up and down with excitement as they realize that they have in their possession an item worth tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars. During every episode the viewer has opportunity to see “junk” transformed to treasure.
There is one segment from a particular episode that stands out in my mind, because it featured the most valuable item they had appraised to that point. An elderly gentleman from Tucson, Arizona, brought in an old blanket he had inherited several years before. He knew it was old and believed it had a little bit of value, perhaps a few hundred or even a couple of thousand dollars. After inheriting this blanket he had thrown it over the back of a rocking chair in his bedroom and had not often thought about it until presented with opportunity to take it to the Roadshow.
With the blanket hanging on a rack behind them, the expert appraiser told the old man that his heart had stopped when he first saw it. As I watched the show, I could see the excitement written all over the expert’s face and extending throughout his body. He could not stand still. He began to explain that the item was a Navajo chief’s blanket that had been woven in the 1840s. In wonderful condition, it was one of the oldest, intact Navajo weaves to survive to the twenty-first century, and certainly one of only a tiny handful to exist outside of museum collections. He showed the fine detail of the weaving and even showed where it had been torn and repaired shortly after it was first made. I could see the excitement in his eyes as he looked at something he knew was extremely valuable. He knew that sitting before him was something more than a blanket—it was a rare national treasure of incredible value and historical significance.
The appraiser seemed to have trouble even beginning to convey to the audience the importance of this blanket. He left no doubt, though, when he told of its value. Because of its rarity and significance, he had no trouble assigning a value of somewhere between 350,000 and 500,000 dollars. This elderly gentleman had come to the show carrying a blanket worth almost a half-million dollars. He simply could not believe what he was hearing. Choked up and with tears pouring from his eyes he asked to hear the amount again. He looked as if he might pass out.
As the man walked out of the convention center where the show had been held, the blanket he had cavalierly carried in with him was now cradled carefully in his arms. He walked out of the building with security guards on either side of him, drove straight to a bank, and placed the blanket in a safe deposit box. What had been “junk,” a mere accent to an old rocking chair, had been instantly transformed into a precious treasure.
When God saves his people, bringing us from death to life, he opens our eyes to love and appreciate the supreme treasure that is Jesus Christ. What had once been of little interest or significance is suddenly transformed into something of inestimable value and worth. The gospel message—the news of Jesus’ miraculous birth, perfect life, substitutionary death, and glorious resurrection—is great and joyous news, and yet, for this very reason, it is under attack by the forces of evil. The eminent nineteenth-century pastor and author J.C. Ryle wrote of just some of the ways the gospel can be spoiled to us:
You may spoil the Gospel by substitution. You have only to withdraw from the eyes of the sinner the grand object which the Bible proposes to faith,—Jesus Christ; and to substitute another object in His place … and the mischief is done. Substitute anything for Christ, and the Gospel is totally spoiled!
You may spoil the Gospel by addition. You have only to add to Christ, the grand object of faith, some other objects as equally worthy of honour, and the mischief is done. Add anything to Christ, and the Gospel ceases to be a pure Gospel!
You may spoil the Gospel by interposition. You have only to push something between Christ and the eye of the soul, to draw away the sinner’s attention from the Saviour, and the mischief is done.
You may spoil the Gospel by disproportion. You have only to attach an exaggerated importance to the secondary things of Christianity, and a diminished importance to the first things, and the mischief is done. Once alter the proportion of the parts of truth, and truth soon becomes downright error!
You may completely spoil the Gospel by confused and contradictory directions. Complicated and obscure statements about faith, baptism, Church privileges, and the benefits of the Lord’s Supper…are almost as bad as no statement at all!
The gospel can be spoiled, though not objectively, for it is an objective reality. Yet it can be spoiled by us and to us. We can modify the gospel, either deliberately or inadvertently, stripping it of its power and its glory. We can bring to people a counterfeit gospel that is no gospel at all. It is the discipline of discernment that God has provided us to guard the purity of the gospel.
Discernment, then, is not an end in itself. Rather, discernment is the means to a far greater and nobler end. By practicing spiritual discernment we guard the gospel, the message of eternal life. The apostle Paul, writing to his young protege Timothy, called him to do just this in both of the letters to Timothy recorded in Scripture. “O Timothy, guard the deposit entrusted to you,” Paul writes in 1 Timothy 6:20. In his next letter he reiterates, “By the Holy Spirit who dwells within us, guard the good deposit entrusted to you” (2 Tim. 1:14). Through the power of the Spirit, Timothy was to guard the gospel.
This word deposit is taken from the ancient world. In the age before personal safes and safe deposit boxes, a person who was going to be away for some time might ask another to care for a treasured possession. He would entrust this possession to another, depositing it to him, and this person was bound by a sacred oath to protect it. In his letters to Timothy, Paul, who knows that he will not always be able to encourage and mentor Timothy, entrusts to him the gospel message. Timothy would be expected to guard this message and to find worthy, godly Christians to whom he could in turn entrust it. And so the gospel has been protected and has carried from one generation to the next through the long, storied history of the church. And so it has been handed in trust to you and to me and to all who believe.
John Stott, in his introduction to his commentary on 2 Timothy, says this:
The church of our day urgently needs to heed the message of this second letter of Paul to Timothy. For all around us we see Christians and churches relaxing their grasp of the gospel, fumbling it, in danger of letting it drop from their hands altogether. A new generation of young Timothys is needed, who will guard the sacred deposit of the gospel, who are determined to proclaim it and are prepared to suffer for it, and who will pass it on pure and uncorrupted to the generation which in due course will rise up to follow them.
God has given us the gospel in trust. He has deposited it to our account and expects that we will guard this priceless, precious treasure. God has entrusted to us something of infinite worth and unsurpassed beauty. He has not left us to our own devices, but he has provided for us the Holy Spirit, that with his help we may be faithful in guarding the gospel of Jesus Christ. Spiritual discernment allows us to keep the gospel central and allows us to see and guard against error. Spiritual discernment is absolutely crucial to the one who would understand and heed the gospel. Nothing less than the gospel is at stake.
This is a brief excerpt drawn from my upcoming book “The Discipline of Spiritual Discernment.” This subject of guarding the deposit has been much on my mind lately so I thought it would be appropriate to share with you this small portion of the book.
The Discipline of Spiritual Discernment
By Tim Challies (Foreword by John MacArthur)
My first book, The Discipline of Spiritual Discernment, will be published by Crossway in January of 2008. The book looks to the Bible to seek what God teaches on the subject of spiritual discernment, a term I define as the skill of understanding and applying God's Word with the purpose of separating truth from error and right from wrong. Written for the general reader and in a way that is suitable for a wide audience, the book teaches people to think biblically so they might act biblically. It appeals for discernment, teaching the importance of this discipline in guarding the good news God has entrusted to us.
The Loss of Vocation and its Recovery -- The Listening Heart
By Albert Mohler @ http://www.albertmohler.com
The concept of vocation -- in the theological sense of a calling -- has all but disappeared from contemporary society. The late Professor A. J. Conyers blames this loss on the rise of confidence in personal autonomy and an absolute demand for personal choice in all dimensions of life.
In The Listening Heart: Vocation and the Crisis of Modern Culture [Spence Publishing], Conyers said he was writing for readers "who cannot, for their life, take modern western culture at face value," and for those "who suspect that modern, western world, even with its productivity, lacks something essential to the human spirit."
Conyers pointed to the loss of vocation as a central symptom of the age -- a loss that explains so many other losses. In his words:
The idea of "vocation" – of being "called" is at first commonplace until one actually begins to think what an extraordinary thing is suggested by such language. It suggests of course, that life does not center on the choices of individuals, and that community does not emerge entirely by appealing to those choices the way modern societies ever since the industrial age assumed, being wholly distracted by the wealth-making power of the market and its appeal to the individual consumer. Vocation instead implies that a larger obligation presses itself upon persons and draws them into a community of mutual sacrifice and affection. Not centering in the individual, the obligations and the affections are understood as coming from a transcendent source. Yet while they are not centered in the individual, they are necessarily addressed to the individual, and therefore necessarily personal-and if personal they can only be described as coming from a divine source, from God. It is that extraordinary premise of community life that the modern age, like the builders of the tower at Babel, wished to defy, even if it could not altogether deny it.
The concept of vocation, if it means anything at all, means that we are called in the context of a community -- indeed for a community. It is based in a knowledge of what the community needs and a knowledge of how persons within the community are gifted.
Conyers added:
It is important to note that this word "call" is an experience, or speaks of an experience, that runs in the opposite direction from the social experience most often articulated by modern people. Here is an idea that pictures the self being "laid hold of" by another, having a claim made upon his time, his future, his destiny, the shape of his life that originates from outside the self. It is the opposite of "choice," or of freedom in the sense of self-determination.
And, recognizing the biblical root of the concept:
Therefore, the Pauline "vocation" is always to a higher unifying reality, namely the body of Christ. It is, furthermore, an eschatological reality for which one might hope and a reality for which one might long to suffer for its greater glory. "He must increase, but I must decrease" are words appropriate to this sentiment of a greater good calling for the suffering, longing, and diminishing of the person. The Enlightenment state also calls for individual sacrifice, but it does so posing as a deliverer from the petty tyrannies of traditional authorities, such as the church, the tribe, and the family. The irony of this trade-off is apparent, for it profits from diminishing the ties to which the individual is born, or in which the individual abides in common faith, by preaching the enlargement of the individual's sphere of action and privilege. At the same time, it requires the kind of sacrifice that is implied in the individual's relationship to family or community of faith.
There are important insights in these words. Conyers rightly saw the atomistic inheritance of the Enlightenment and the need for a recovery of the only context in which calling and vocation could make sense. But added to this must be the recognition that the most authentic community in which vocation is to arise and be affirmed is in the church. The local congregation of believers is the most important context for the recovery and discovery of vocation. In the fellowship of fellow believers and under mutual submission to Christ we discover who we are and what we are called to do for God and for each other.
Conyers concludes:
Only when members of a community understand life as a response to a large and generous world, created by a great and merciful Providence, will the possibilities of life together become more fully realize. Otherwise, without this spirit infusing and animating people, existence is reduced to competing forces, clashing at twilight, grasping whatever is left of power, fame and fortune, before the darkness descends. For then, while the isolation becomes rooted in every human domain, its end is necessarily found in the dust of death. But with this spirit of vocation, this conviction that we are not after all, our own, but belong to Another, the world opens up, becomes a place for others, and is illuminated by a spreading and abiding hope.
A. J. Conyers was a gifted teacher who will be greatly missed. Nevertheless, this book, published after his early death, represents a lasting legacy.
Don't fence me in
From http://against-heresies.blogspot.com
Almost twenty years ago I appeared in our school production of Calamity Jane. One of the songs from that musical serves as an anthem for those who have an aversion, almost an allergic reaction, to confessional statements. That aversion is to regard confessional statements as inherently restrictive. As the song goes "Let me ride in the wide open country that I love/Don't fence me in."
Of course it shouldn't escape our notice that the rejection of confessionalism (or a particular confession) involves us making a confessional statement of a different kind. It is simply the exchanging of one kind of confession for another. To decry statements of faith as restrictive is at the same time to advance another statement of faith (complete with a theology and an epistemology).
To recognize, value, and insist on confessional statements should not be viewed as treating tham as necessarily exhaustive. It does, however, imply that certain truths can be articulated, described, agreed upon, distinguished from other theological ideas, defended, and communicated in an intelligible form.
It is a great shame to hear even well respected church leaders shying away from statements of faith in their church network out of a desire not to "put people into a kind of prison." That comment, in context, was not a flat out denial of the value of creeds and confessions. It is however a curiously chosen and deeply inappropriate metaphor to describe confessionalism.
Imagine a childrens' playground next to a minefield. Would you want a strong, tall fence, with no gaps in it, separating the two? Would you feel bad if your children complained that the park was a prison because of that big fence? Even though I can't imagine anyone being dumb enough to put a playground next to a minefield, you would not want for one second to tear down that fence and let the children explore the neighbouring wide open spaces unrestricted.
That of course is only to think of creeds and confessional statements in their function as boundaries to protect the Church from theological dangers, it doesn't begin to get at the way that confessions promote the truth of biblical teaching for the health, blessing, building up and comfort of the Church and the glorifying of the Triune God of grace.
Mike Horton, as he so often does, provides some helpful comments on anti-confessionalism:
Ever since the beginning of the last century, the democratizing influence has bred suspicion and outright hostility toward creeds, confessions and catechisms. "Don't Fence Me In" is the egalitarian spirit of Romantic individualism that so characterizes our age and our churches.Mike Horton, "Recovering the Plumbline," in John Armstrong [ed.], The Coming Evangelical Crisis, p. 249
Occasionally I will hear the objection to creeds, confessions, and catechisms with the assertion "I just go directly to the Bible." The assumption here is that those who drafted these documents that have stood the test of time did not go directly to the Bible.
But our forbears did go directly to the Bible when they drafted their confessions of faith and catechisms. In fact, the Puritans carefully included texts for every statement in the Westminster Larger and Shorter Catechisms. The minute one begins to explain what the Bible is saying in a particular place, he or she is doing precisely what these gifted pastors and teachers did: interpreting the Word of God. The only diference is that our own interpretations are limited by our own time, place, and circumstances, whereas these long-standing interpretations make available to us today the wisdom of centuries of biblical interpretation.
Contentment Comes from Giving
By John MacArthur @ http://www.sfpulpit.comThis concludes our series on contentment from Monday and last week. This series was adapted from John’s book Anxiety Attacked.
If you live for yourself, you will never be content. Many of us don’t experience contentment because we demand our world to be exactly the way we want it to be. We want our spouse to fulfill our expectations and agenda. We want our children to conform to a prewritten plan we have ordained for them to fulfill. And we want everything else to fall into its perfect niche in the little cupboard where we compartmentalize every element of existence.
Paul prayed for the Philippians to have a different perspective. He began his letter to them with a prayer that their love for one another might abound (Phil. 1:9), and went on to give this practical advice: “Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind let each of you regard one another as more important than himself” (Phil. 2:3). He wanted them to lose themselves by being preoccupied with the well-being of others. This was the example he gave to them and us:
Nevertheless, you have done well to share with me in my affliction. And you yourselves also know, Philippians, that at the first preaching of the Gospel, after I departed from Macedonia, no church shared with me in the matter of giving and receiving but you alone; for even in Thessalonica you sent a gift more than once for my needs. Not that I seek the gift itself, but I seek for the profit which increases to your account. But I have received everything in full, and have an abundance; I am amply supplied, having received from Epaphroditus what you have sent, a fragrant aroma, an acceptable sacrifice, well pleasing to God. And my God shall supply all your needs according to His riches in glory in Christ Jesus (Phil. 4:14–19).
Even though Paul was assured of God’s providence, independent of his circumstances, and strengthened by divine power, he knew how to write a gracious thank-you note. He wanted the Philippians to know they had done a noble thing in caring for his needs. They were a poor church from Macedonia (an area whose poverty is described in 2 Cor. 8—9) who had apparently sent food, clothing, and money to Paul in Rome through Epaphroditus. Their generosity impressed Paul.
Notice what made him happiest of all about the gift: “Not that I seek the gift itself, but I seek for the profit which increases to your account” (Phil. 4:17). He was more interested in their spiritual benefit than his material gain. Being comfortable, well fed, and satisfied weren’t Paul’s main concerns in life. Rather, he was interested in accruing eternal dividends to the lives of the people he loved. Here are the timeless scriptural principles that apply:
Proverbs 11:24–25: “There is one who scatters, yet increases all the more, and there is one who withholds what is justly due, but it results only in want. The generous man will be prosperous, and he who waters will himself be watered.”
Paul described the gift he had received as “a fragrant aroma, an acceptable sacrifice, well pleasing to God” (Phil. 4:18). He was using Old Testament imagery to say, “Not only did you give it to me, but you also gave it to God.” At the beginning of our passage, in verse 10, we noted how happy Paul was to receive the gift. His joy came not because he finally received what he had been wanting (as we saw in verse 11, he politely mentioned that he didn’t need it), but because the Philippians had given him something that honored God and would accrue to their spiritual benefit.
Their doing that led Paul to say in closing, “My God shall supply all your needs according to His riches in glory in Christ Jesus” (v. 19). That is one of the most often-quoted verses of Scripture, but it needs to be set in its context. Paul was saying, “You gave to me in a way that left you in need. I want to assure you that God will not remain in your debt. He will supply all your needs.” It refers to material, earthly needs sacrificed by the Philippians that God in response to their sacrifice would amply replenish.
If you likewise “honor the Lord from your wealth…your barns will be filled with plenty, and your vats will overflow with new wine” (Prov. 3:9–10). God’s not going to give you back spiritual blessings only and let you die of hunger. If you’re in Christ, the riches of God in glory are yours. That is why, as we learned in our first chapter , we are not to be preoccupied with what we eat, drink, or wear. Instead we are to “seek first His kingdom, and His righteousness; and… not be anxious” (Matt. 6:33–34).
Attack anxiety in your life by applying what you have learned about contentment. Be confident in God’s sovereign providence, and don’t allow your circumstances to trouble you. Instead of giving in to panic, cling to the promise of Romans 8:28: “We know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God.” Regard that verse as a spiritual lifeline for the rest of your life.
Also, buck the tide of our materialistic, selfish society by being satisfied with little and more concerned about the spiritual welfare of others than your material needs. Be obedient to God’s Word and confident in His power to meet all your needs. May our Lord keep all these principles in the forefront of our minds that we might be content—and free from anxiety!
The Ideal Christian Woman: Part 1
have had several women recently come to me concerned that they don't match the stereotype of the Ideal Christian Woman. That got me to think--what is that stereotype? When I hear others discuss the "Christian Woman" at our church, I think I know what they are talking about. I'm not going to describe her here, because I don't want to hurt any woman who may fit that stereotype. But I do want to shoot down the main myth I hear about the stereotypical Christian woman.
Myth
The godliest of Christian women look great all the time, all have godly Boaz type husbands, and have the same convictions about childbirth, breastfeeding, education, dinner preparation, employment, and so forth.
The Truth
First of all, "godliest" is a bad label. It implies we determine our godliness by comparing ourselves to others. "She's godlier than that other lady, so that makes her the godliest." Wrong! Christ is our standard of perfection, and we all fall short of His glory. The best analogy I've heard is that it is like someone standing on a sheet of paper and claiming to be closer to the sun. When we try to use the label "godliest," we are equally absurd.
We have many godly, mature ladies at Mars Hill with great wisdom to offer their sisters in Christ. The first quality of all of them is humility. They realize their unworthiness and don't hold their preferences on childbirth, breastfeeding, education, dinner prep, and so forth as anything for which to pat themselves on the back. In fact, among the mature, Christlike women I know at Mars Hill, there are diverse opinions on each of these issues. Also, we have many godly women who are not married and/or do not have children. These women too are humble servants, hospitable with their resources and Christlike in their priorities.
I have definitely felt pressure from godly Christian women. But rather than feeling peer pressure to conform to some outward stereotype, I have felt pressure to know God, spend time in His Word, to pray, to be humble, to love my husband and children, and to embrace my role in their lives. While I have gleaned great practical information on breastfeeding, education, childbirth, dinner prep, etc from these ladies, I haven't felt pressure to conform to their image. No--they point me to conform to Christ's image (Romans 8:29). In that light, I can receive their practical feedback on different topics, compare it to other research I've done, pray about it with my husband, and reach my own personal convictions from the Word based on how the Spirit is leading my family as He conforms us to the image of God.
In light of all this, what are the true characteristics of the Ideal Christian Woman? Over the next few articles, let's take some time to explore these in four main categories I have observed.
1. The Ideal Christian Woman … Is Honest About Her Sin.
If we want to paint a stereotype of the Ideal Christian Woman, she would first simply be honest about the condition of her heart. The Apostle Paul is such a great example of this in the many letters he wrote to the young, fledgling New Testament churches. In I Timothy 1:12-15, he lays it out very clearly.
I thank him who has given me strength, Christ Jesus our Lord, because he judged me faithful, appointing me to his service, though formerly I was a blasphemer, persecutor, and insolent opponent. …. The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost.
Paul starts his letters under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit with an honest assessment of his sin. And notice that, while he gives the humble general statement that he was the foremost of sinners, he also lists specific sins. He doesn't sugar coat it, and he doesn't brush over it.
In contrast, how many of us have spent significant portions of our lives paralyzed by fear of exposure? We respond in groups by either clamming up or deflecting conversation because we don't want anyone to know the depth of our issues. And if we ever do give voice to our struggles, we sanitize it. We don't really want others to know how much we're hurting right now. And we don't want anyone to know how much our sin has hurt others.
Oh that we would be a church of humble women who are honest about our sin. Instead, so often we are a mix of shame and pride. We're ashamed of ourselves because of what others have done to us and what we, in turn, have done to others. And we're too proud to admit it to anyone. We must become women who value confession. I don't know where the saying originated that "confession is good for the soul," but I believe it's a concept that is taught first in Scripture.
Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another so that you may be healed. The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much.
James 5:16 (NAS)
Do you notice the link between healing (which we all want) and confession? We all want to be healed from the ugliness in our lives. But are we first willing to confess--to admit, to acknowledge as true—the ugliness in our lives?
During a recent discussion with an elder concerning the women at Mars Hill Church who come forward for counsel, he said, "Those women who come forward represent those brave enough to get help. They are only a small sampling of the whole body of women at MHC. The issues counselors see are experienced among so many to varying degrees who just can't bring themselves to the place of exposure. The shame they have experienced and shaming they expect is too much, so they say nothing and stay hidden."
Does that sound familiar to you? Do you fall in that group? God forbid that we hide in the shadows like Eve after her sin lest we be exposed as something other than our warped view of the Ideal Christian woman. In our depravity, we think the Ideal Christian woman has it all together. Instead, we must understand the first step is to be honest about our mess.
Confession begins the process of repentance. For a good Biblical exploration of the journey from sin to joy via confession and repentance to God, check out Grace Driscoll's lesson from the January 27, 2007 Women's Training Day. (http://www.marshillchurch.org/audio/070127_Womens_Training_Day_02_The_Journey.mp3)
Blessed is the one whose transgression is forgiven,
whose sin is covered.
Blessed is the man against whom the LORD counts no iniquity,
and in whose spirit there is no deceit.For when I kept silent, my bones wasted away
through my groaning all day long.
For day and night your hand was heavy upon me;
my strength was dried up as by the heat of summer.Selah
I acknowledged my sin to you,
and I did not cover my iniquity;
I said, "I will confess my transgressions to the LORD,"
and you forgave the iniquity of my sin.Selah
Psalm 32
Philosophy Certified my Humanity as a Fetus
[excerpts from Life Training Institute “The Case for Life”]
As Stephen Schwarz points out using the acronym SLED, differences of size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency are not relevant in the way that abortion advocates need them to be.
Sadly, opponents of the pro-life view believe that human beings that are in the wrong location or have the wrong level of development do not deserve the protection of law. They assert, without justification, the belief that strong and independent people deserve the protection of law while small and dependent people do not. This view is elitist and exclusive. It violates the principle that once made political liberalism great: a basic commitment to protect the most vulnerable members of the human community.
We can do better than that. In the past, we used to discriminate on the basis of skin color and gender, but now, with elective abortion, we discriminate on the basis of size, level of development, location, and degree of dependency. We've simply exchanged one form of bigotry for another.
In sharp contrast, the position I have defended is that no human being, regardless of size, level of development, race, gender, or place of residence, should be excluded from the moral community of human persons. In other words, the pro-life view of humanity is inclusive, indeed wide open, to all, especially those that are small, vulnerable and defenseless.
Only Those Prepared Here, Will Enjoy Christ Hereafter
Observe: Those only who are ready and prepared in this life for Christ, shall enjoy eternal and immediate communion with Christ; those only who are fitted shall partake of his fellowship; for of all these virgins (though many of them were otherwise very well qualified) only those which were ready did enter in with the bridegroom, which readiness in these wise virgins was not, nor is not, any Popish preparation, either meritorious, or congruous or wrought by the power of corrupted or adorned nature; but divine and glorious, wrought by the power of Christ, out of his eternal love to the vessels of glory, as an antecedent, not moving cause of this eternal fellowship; it is the first degree of our resurrection with Christ. Rom. ix. 23, "Vessels of glory prepared unto glory;" the same word which is used here, there are two ends God hath appointed all men to, either to be vessels of wrath; who are those? verse 22, "Those that are fitted for destruction;" others of glory; who are those? "Prepared unto glory." 2 Cor. v. 5, with 8. How comes Paul and all the saints to know, and groan for to be out of the body, and to break the cage, and to be with the Lord? one reason is, they are wrought and moulded, and fashioned for that condition by the hand of a merciful God, even as one may know what vessels are for especial use, by their metal, and curious engravings upon them.
Reason 1-- Men are Unfit for Heaven
Because all men's souls are naturally unfit and unprepared to enjoy communion with Christ; it is said, (Rev. xxi.) unclean "Nothing enters into the new Jerusalem on earth, which is unclean, and defileth;" and, (Heb. xii. 14,) "Without holiness no man shall see the Lord." Now, naturally all men are defiled, and unclean vessels, and under the power of their sins, loathing angels' food, the grace of Christ, and weary of the fellowship of Christ; and, therefore, they must be prepared for the Lord first; this is one reason why preparation to every holy duty is needful, and so needful, that let men perform any holy duty, wherein they draw near to Christ without a heart prepared, (Ps. x. 17,) their performances are rejected, or not blessed; and hence Rehoboam, though he did maintain the worship of God at Jerusalem, "yet he prepared not his heart," (2 Chron. xii. 14;) and hence Hezekiah mourns, and begs pardon for this, "that he is so purified according to the purification of the sanctuary." Now, to a holy duty, and communion with Christ here, this is needful; sore eyes can not behold the sun without grief; sick bodies loathe the best food; if the Lord should let a carnal heart into heaven with that heart he hath, and not change his nature, he would not stay there if he could escape; but having his swinish nature, he would be in his mire again; and the government of Christ being a bondage to him, he would break bonds, and break his prison, if he knew where to fly from the presence of the Lord; and hence, no work so wearisome as Christ's now, no time so uncomfortable and tedious as abiding under Christ's wings in his ordinances now. 1 Cor. xv. 50, "If flesh and blood can not enter into the kingdom of heaven, much less corruption."
Reason 2-- Preparation is a Work of Grace
In regard of the rich grace and wisdom of his love toward his people; for who sees not, but that it is a curse to be unready as these foolish virgins, who were therefore shut out? O, therefore, it is grace and mercy to make ready, and indeed an answer to prayers, and a comfort against all fears of the saints, who are then desirous to be with the Lord when they are indeed ready; readiness for Christ doth not destroy grace, but being a fruit of God's grace, advanceth it. Rom. ix. 23, the apostle makes it the first fruit of glory, that the saints are "prepared unto glory;" glory of mercy is the end, preparedness thereto is the means, or way leading to that end; if God appoints the end, his wisdom leads also first to the means which lead at Last to the end; if out of his rich grace he appoints the end, out of the same grace, by this other, he leads to this end; and though you think it not now grace, you shall say it is so another day, when, with these foolish virgins, you shall say, "O that I were ready !" I know not almost which is greatest love, to prepare for glory, or to bring into the possession of it; to make a vessel of poisonous dross a vessel of gold, or when it is so, to fill it; for the Lord to look upon a man when he is in his blood, and then to wash him; when a man is as water spilt upon the ground, and a broken vessel of no use, now for the Lord to pity, and fit for use, it is exceeding rich grace.
Reason 3-- The Bridegroom Prepares the Bride
In regard of the honor of the Lord Jesus, it was one part of the honor of Christ to have John go before him, and (Luke i. 17) "to prepare a people ready for the Lord." As it is part of a prince's honor to have his bride ready, and attired to welcome and entertain him, when he shall return to her, she owes this honor to him, and he expects this honor from her; so the Lord Jesus deserves this honor from all his people to be in readiness for him. Suppose these virgins had turned harlots, and gone a-whoring from him till his very coming, and then had been taken in, what might the world think? Doth he love the fellowship of harlots? for a man's heart to go a-whoring from the Lord, after the world, or lusts, to die so, is to disgrace the Lord Jesus; and hence (Phil. iii. 17 to the end) there are two sorts of men professing godliness; some mind "earthly things," others look and mind "a Saviour from heaven;" the one disgrace Christ, and are enemies to him; and hence Paul weeps for them; the other are his friends. And are princes so far respected as all things are ready for them? and is the Lord worthy of no such respect, so as that his people should be unready? No, know it as he said, (Mal. i.) "He is a great King."
The particulars wherein this readiness consists I have spoken of in the first part of the parable, and shall now only speak of them in the subsequent uses.
APPLICATION
Terror and astonishment of heart to all those that are wholly unready, that have no readiness at all to meet, or to have fellowship with the Lord Jesus; if those that are ready be received in, then those that be unready shall be shut out.
There is a number among us, young and old, of all sorts almost among us, that swarm up and down towns, and woods, and fields, whose care and work hitherto hath been like bees, only to get honey to their own hive, only to live here comfortably with their houses, and lots, and victuals, and fine clothes, etc., but not to live hereafter eternally. Suppose the Lord should stop thy breath, and cut thee off, what would become of thee? I trust to God's mercy, I hope I should go to Christ, though I am not assured; but are you ready for Christ? Yes, I hope I am; O, poor wretch ! why cost hope so? if thou never hadst one hour's serious thoughts, What will become of me? or, How shall I be ready? feeling thy unreadiness and unfitness thereunto. Or if thou hast had any thoughts, never west possessed with any strong fears of eternity, and separation from the Lord Jesus, which hath damped thy mirth, and sunk thy heart, and perplexed thy thoughts, and made thee think with terror upon thy conscience, What will become of me? nor made thee desirous to ask others that question, as it is commonly one of the first, though but a common work, to think of dying presently: I have lived long without God and Christ in the world, and die I must shortly, and what will become of me then?
But you have slept quietly enough in the night, and sung care away and cast fear away in the day, and thy heart never had one hour's fit of shaking and trembling at eternity to come, when it is the nature of true fear ever to have the eye upon what it fears, till it is taken away; and if difficulty attend the same, to remove it; it can not be quiet, but will cry for help, if possibly help may be had; this you never did: no, thou never hadst so much as these foolish virgins, viz., to be awakened at all, but a spirit of slumber hath been upon thee; God hath given thee eyes, but thou canst not see; ears, and thou canst not hear; thou sayest (it may be) that thou cost hope thou art prepared; alas! thou hast not a virgin's name, much less nature, nor cost thou not deserve it neither; thou hast not forsaken thy loose company, nor yet come to the company of the wise, neither cost thou desire it, or think thyself unworthy of it; thy lamp is out; nay, thou never hadst any light at all, never madest profession at all, as if one ready for Christ; but O, poor wretch, all is yet to do with thee! if so, then remember that if thou diest now, thou shalt never have communion with Jesus Christ in glory.
Objection: What if I have not yet received Christ?
Answer: I know it is the misery of men, they can make nothing of this till they feel it: but two things I will say:
- Do but consider, what if thou shouldst be deprived of the light of the sun; nay, only of bread, only that one creature, and have clothes, sun, friends, all other blessings but that, would it not be a woe with a witness? would it not cut a man's heart to hear him cry bread, bread, a little bread, for the Lord's sake, to save my life! there is but a drop of the sweetness of Christ in that. O, what a misery will it be to pine away, and famish under wrath in chains of darkness, and to cry, O, a little refreshing from the presence of Christ, and canst not get it, but to live ever tormented without that, when thy soul shall cry, Lord, thus long have I been tormented without thee, till my spirits are weary, and my heart faint; now, O, now a little mercy,-O, no.
- That though thou seest it no great matter to be separated from Christ now, yet when the heavens shall be in a flaming fire, and the earth shall give up the dead that be in it, and Christ shall appear in infinite glory, admired of angels, blessed of saints, crowned of God, comforting his-elect, "Come, O, come, ye blessed;" then you shall think this separation something. O that you would now go home and mourn, and look up to the Lord, that he would make thee ready a vessel of honor, and acknowledge it is righteous with him if he should never do it!
Obey Your Pastor?
By Michael Lawrence@http://www.boundless.orgWe've all seen them. The mass weddings conducted by the Unification Church (the Moonies), in which each couple was individually approved by the leader of that cult. Or perhaps we've come across other groups, like the International Church of Christ, in which leaders claiming the authority of spiritual shepherds inform their members who they'll marry, and then require obedience as proof of their true discipleship.
Most people recognize these and similar examples as a gross abuse of authority. It's one of the hallmarks of a cult—unreasonable claims to authority on the part of the leader and the requirement of absolute obedience on the part of the followers.
In light of such abuse, and having searched the Bible in vain for more specific guidance, many Christian singles have resigned themselves to personal preference as their main or only guide. Parents of course usually have advice. And so do pastors or other church leaders.
But while such counsel may be helpful, surely it doesn't have to be obeyed, does it? After all, in marriage, if not before, the young adult establishes himself or herself as an independent member of society. The command to honor one's father and mother remains, but is now expressed as respect rather than obedience. And while a pastor may have sound spiritual insight, surely his responsibility is to support and strengthen the marriage union we make, not to approve or veto it. Clearly the question of whom to marry is a matter of preference, not obedience; a matter of choice, not command. Right?
Over the course of the last year, my friend and fellow elder, Scott Croft, and I have published a number of articles on Boundless suggesting that while the decision to marry is a personal one, it is not private. We've said that relationships should be conducted under the context of church and family accountability and that fathers and pastors should especially be sought out for counsel and direction.
In a consumeristic, individualistic world, such ideas have seemed radical and shocking to many of you. Still, some of you at least have tried to put these ideas into practice. You've involved your parents or pastor. You've sought their counsel and submitted to their accountability. Everything seems to be going fine, until the day your pastor pulls you aside and says, "I don't think you should marry her/him." Now what? Having invited their involvement, do you have to obey?
Will it surprise you if my answer is "Yes and no"?
A Short History Lesson
But before I explain that, let me offer a short lesson from history that has largely shaped Protestant thinking on church authority since the Reformation.
In many ways, the English Reformation began and ended with a rejection of church authority. In 1527 Henry VIII wanted a divorce from Katherine of Aragon, but Pope Clement VII refused. His reasons were complicated (part theology and part politics), but at least in theory his refusal was grounded on the Bible's prohibition of divorce for any reason other than adultery. This was one crime of which everyone agreed Katherine was not guilty.
The Pope could point to numerous explicit statements in Scripture, not least Jesus words in Matthew 5:31-32 and Luke 16:18. Henry, however, was not about to let his political ambitions be stymied by Scripture, and so in 1534 he broke with Rome, and made himself head of the churches in England. Needless to say, he now found a more sympathetic ear for his request!
One hundred and thirty-five years later, yet another King wanted to cement his control over the now Protestant Church of England. He insisted that every local church pastor take an oath that everything in the Book of Common Prayer was sanctioned by the Bible. In 1662, over 2,000 ministers, fully one-third of the nation's clergy, could not square that demand with their consciences or their Bibles. Rather than submit to church authority, they suffered the consequences and were permanently "ejected" from the ministry.
So what do we learn from these two rejections of churchly authority that frame the English Reformation? In short, they illustrate for us the answer to the question, "Do I have to obey?"
Ironic as it may seem, this Protestant pastor takes Pope Clement VII's side in the debate with Henry VIII. Henry should not have divorced Katherine. Not because the Pope said so, but because God said so in the Bible. All the Pope was doing (or should have been doing) was telling Henry what God said, and calling Henry to obey his Lord.
On the other hand, as much as I love it, the fact remains that the 1662 Book of Common Prayer requires things in worship that God nowhere requires of his New Testament people. Had Charles II left such matters as mere suggestions, to be practiced according to an individual's conscience and wisdom, those ministers might have stayed put. Instead, the ministers of England were forced to choose between obeying God and obeying "church authority," and 2,000 of them made the right choice.
When we must obey
God's Word gives us a number of explicit instructions about many things, including marriage. Paul tells us that if we are Christians, we must marry "in the Lord" (1 Corinthians 7:39). Jesus tells us that if we marry someone who's been divorced unbiblically, we commit adultery (Luke 16:18). Jesus also tells us that marriage is to be between one man and one woman, excluding polygamy, serial monogamy, and homosexual unions (Matthew 19:4-6). Finally, the Old Testament lays down a number of other rules that have continuing force, such as the prohibition against incest (Leviticus 18) or the requirement of parental consent in the case of minors (Ex. 22:17).
In each of these cases, it is no abuse of authority for a pastor to say, "You cannot marry this person." He's not exercising personal authority. He's simply declaring God's Word to you. Like Henry VIII, you can still choose to disobey. But it won't be your pastor you're defying. Ultimately it's God's authority you're rejecting.
When we're free to disobey
In 1 Corinthians 7:39, Paul says, "A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord." What that means is that so long as the Biblical requirements are met, you really are free before God to marry whomever you choose. And any attempts to impose requirements beyond that are illegitimate.
It might be wise to marry someone who agrees with your denominational distinctives, or political persuasions, or regional loyalties. It might be practical to pick someone that your siblings like or that your grandmother approves. You'll probably be well served by marrying someone who is at least as spiritually mature as you are. But if a pastor comes along and says, "You have to marry this person ..." or "You can't marry this person ..." because of reasons like those, then like those 2,000 ministers in 1662, you are free to reject such counsel without fear that you are defying God's authority.
So do you have to obey your pastor when he says, "You should (or should not) marry him/her"? It all depends. When a pastor declares God's revealed will to you from Scripture, then you must obey. If, as is more usual, he's offering his counsel and wisdom, then you are free to take it or not.
Theologians describe biblical pastoral authority as being "only ministerial and declarative since the Holy Scriptures are the only rule of faith and practice" (PCA Book of Church Order, Preface, II.7). In other words, the pastor might (and probably does) have lots of wisdom. But when it comes to saying "you must obey this," he can go no further than what God's Word says (declarative) since he's only authorized to act on God's behalf (ministerial).
Now this might seem obvious to many of you. But what all of us need to realize is that what seems obvious today may seem much less obvious when we're madly in love and looking for ways to rationalize our decisions. All of us are prone to disregard God's revealed will at some point or another. When we give in to the temptation to lust, or vent our anger, or shade the truth to our own advantage, it's not because God's Word wasn't clear enough on those matters. It's because something other than God and his glory had captured our hearts. So why should getting married be any different?
So before you write this article off as only stating the obvious, consider that the most important issues in choosing a spouse have already been addressed by God in His Word. We can talk about the nuances of what to do with the pastor's advice on matters of prudence and wisdom. But that's merely arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic if we've not first cultivated the humility to hear and heed God's authority in those matters to which He has spoken.
How do we cultivate such humility? Here are a few suggestions:
- Spend time regularly in God's Word, and each time ask yourself how the passage you read is calling you to repent.
- Cultivate relationships with other Christians in which godly criticism and rebuke is expected and welcomed.
- Ask yourself the following questions regularly: "When was the last time I laughed at myself?" "When was the last time I asked someone for forgiveness?" "When was the last time I admitted that I was wrong or that I didn't know the answer to a question?"
- Meditate on the cross often, remembering that it was your sin, not your weakness or ignorance, that Christ died for.
- Cultivate a sense of the greatness and majesty and glory of God.
- Read CJ Mahaney's book, Humility: True Greatness (Multnomah, 2005). There's no better short treatment of humility out there.
So having laid out the "yes and no" of obedience to pastoral authority, I recognize that most of us live somewhere in between. On the one hand, we know what the Bible requires and we mean to obey it. On the other hand, our pastors aren't saying we can't marry this girl or that guy, just that they don't think it's such a good idea.
What do we do when pastoral authority comes to us, not as requirement and obligation, but as advice and admonition? And to make matters more pointed, what do we do when that pastoral advice cuts against the desires of our hearts? For that, stay tuned for my next article. In the meantime, work on cultivating a heart that is eager to hear and heed wisdom from God.
____________________________________________________________________
A Duke graduate, Michael received a Master of Divinity degree from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary and a doctorate in Church History at Cambridge University. He and his wife, Adrienne, have four children: Michael, Christian, Samuel, and Sarah. He currently serves as an Associate Pastor at Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington, D.C.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Christians and Halloween
Halloween. It's a time of year when the air gets crisper, the day gets shorter, and for many young Americans the excitement grows in anticipation of the darkest, spookiest holiday of the year. Retailers rejoice too as they warm up their cash registers to receive an average of $41.77 per household in decorations, costumes, candy, and greeting cards. Halloween will bring in approximately 3.3 billion dollars this year.
It's a good bet retailers won't entertain high expectations of getting $41.77 per household from the Christian market. Many Christians refuse to participate in Halloween. Some are wary of its pagan origins; others of its dark, ghoulish imagery; still others are concerned for the safety of their children. But other Christians choose to partake of the festivities, whether participating in school activities, neighborhood trick-or-treating, or a Halloween alternative at their church.
The question is, How should Christians respond to Halloween? Is it irresponsible for parents to let their children trick-or-treat? What about Christians who refuse any kind of celebration during the season--are they overreacting?
The Pagan Origin of Halloween
The name "Halloween" comes from the All Saints Day celebration of the early Christian church, a day set aside for the solemn remembrance of the martyrs. All Hallows Eve, the evening before All Saints Day, began the time of remembrance. "All Hallows Eve" was eventually contracted to "Hallow-e'en," which became "Halloween."
As Christianity moved through Europe it collided with indigenous pagan cultures and confronted established customs. Pagan holidays and festivals were so entrenched that new converts found them to be a stumbling block to their faith. To deal with the problem, the organized church would commonly move a distinctively Christian holiday to a spot on the calendar that would directly challenge a pagan holiday. The intent was to counter pagan influences and provide a Christian alternative. But most often the church only succeeded in "Christianizing" a pagan ritual--the ritual was still pagan, but mixed with Christian symbolism. That's what happened to All Saints Eve--it was the original Halloween alternative!
The Celtic people of Europe and Britain were pagan Druids whose major celebrations were marked by the seasons. At the end of the year in northern Europe, people made preparations to ensure winter survival by harvesting the crops and culling the herds, slaughtering animals that wouldn't make it. Life slowed down as winter brought darkness (shortened days and longer nights), fallow ground, and death. The imagery of death, symbolized by skeletons, skulls, and the color black, remains prominent in today's Halloween celebrations.
The pagan Samhain festival (pronounced "sow" "en") celebrated the final harvest, death, and the onset of winter, for three days--October 31 to November 2. The Celts believed the curtain dividing the living and the dead lifted during Samhain to allow the spirits of the dead to walk among the living--ghosts haunting the earth.
Some embraced the season of haunting by engaging in occult practices such as divination and communication with the dead. They sought "divine" spirits (demons) and the spirits of their ancestors regarding weather forecasts for the coming year, crop expectations, and even romantic prospects. Bobbing for apples was one practice the pagans used to divine the spiritual world's "blessings" on a couple's romance.
For others the focus on death, occultism, divination, and the thought of spirits returning to haunt the living, fueled ignorant superstitions and fears. They believed spirits were earthbound until they received a proper sendoff with treats--possessions, wealth, food, and drink. Spirits who were not suitably "treated" would "trick" those who had neglected them. The fear of haunting only multiplied if that spirit had been offended during its natural lifetime.
Trick-bent spirits were believed to assume grotesque appearances. Some traditions developed, which believed wearing a costume to look like a spirit would fool the wandering spirits. Others believed the spirits could be warded off by carving a grotesque face into a gourd or root vegetable (the Scottish used turnips) and setting a candle inside it--the jack-o-lantern.
Into that dark, superstitious, pagan world, God mercifully shined the light of the gospel. Newly converted Christians armed themselves with the truth and no longer feared a haunting from departed spirits returning to earth. In fact, they denounced their former pagan spiritism in accord with Deuteronomy 18:
There shall not be found among you anyone...who uses divination, one who practices witchcraft, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, or one who casts a spell, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead. For whoever does these things is detestable to the Lord (vv. 10-13).
Nonetheless, Christian converts found family and cultural influence hard to withstand; they were tempted to rejoin the pagan festivals, especially Samhain. Pope Gregory IV reacted to the pagan challenge by moving the celebration of All Saints Day in the ninth century--he set the date at November 1, right in the middle of Samhain.
As the centuries passed, Samhain and All Hallows Eve mixed together. On the one hand, pagan superstitions gave way to "Christianized" superstitions and provided more fodder for fear. People began to understand that the pagan ancestral spirits were demons and the diviners were practicing witchcraft and necromancy. On the other hand, the festival time provided greater opportunity for revelry. Trick-or-treat became a time when roving bands of young hooligans would go house-to-house gathering food and drink for their parties. Stingy householders ran the risk of a "trick" being played on their property from drunken young people.
Halloween didn't become an American holiday until the immigration of the working classes from the British Isles in the late nineteenth century. While early immigrants may have believed the superstitious traditions, it was the mischievous aspects of the holiday that attracted American young people. Younger generations borrowed or adapted many customs without reference to their pagan origins.
Hollywood has added to the "fun" a wide assortment of fictional characters--demons, monsters, vampires, werewolves, mummies, and psychopaths. That certainly isn't improving the American mind, but it sure is making someone a lot of money.
The Christian Response to Halloween
Today Halloween is almost exclusively an American secular holiday, but many who celebrate have no concept of its religious origins or pagan heritage. That's not to say Halloween has become more wholesome. Children dress up in entertaining costumes, wander the neighborhood in search of candy, and tell each other scary ghost stories; but adults often engage in shameful acts of drunkenness and debauchery.
So, how should Christians respond?
First, Christians should not respond to Halloween like superstitious pagans. Pagans are superstitious; Christians are enlightened by the truth of God's Word. Evil spirits are no more active and sinister on Halloween than they are on any other day of the year; in fact, any day is a good day for Satan to prowl about seeking whom he may devour (1 Peter 5:8). But "greater is He who is in you than he who is in the world" (1 John 4:4). God has forever "disarmed principalities and powers" through the cross Christ and "made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them through [Christ]" (Colossians 2:15).
Second, Christians should respond to Halloween with cautionary wisdom. Some people fear the activity of Satanists or pagan witches, but the actual incidents of satanic-associated crime are very low. The real threat on Halloween is from the social problems that attend sinful behavior--drunk driving, pranksters and vandals, and unsupervised children.
Like any other day of the year, Christians should exercise caution as wise stewards of their possessions and protectors of their families. Christian young people should stay away from secular Halloween parties since those are breeding grounds for trouble. Christian parents can protect their children by keeping them well-supervised and restricting treat consumption to those goodies received from trusted sources.
Third, Christians should respond to Halloween with gospel compassion. The unbelieving, Christ-rejecting world lives in perpetual fear of death. It isn't just the experience of death, but rather what the Bible calls "a certain terrifying expectation of judgment, and the fury of a fire which will consume [God's] adversaries" (Hebrews 10:27). Witches, ghosts, and evil spirits are not terrifying; God's wrath unleashed on the unforgiven sinner--now that is truly terrifying.
Christians should use Halloween and all that it brings to the imagination--death imagery, superstition, expressions of debauched revelry--as an opportunity to engage the unbelieving world with the gospel of Jesus Christ. God has given everyone a conscience that responds to His truth (Romans 2:14-16), and the conscience is the Christian's ally in the evangelistic enterprise. Christians should take time to inform the consciences of friends and family with biblical truth regarding God, the Bible, sin, Christ, future judgment, and the hope of eternal life in Jesus Christ for the repentant sinner.
There are several different ways Christians will engage in Halloween evangelism. Some will adopt a "No Participation" policy. As Christian parents, they don't want their kids participating in spiritually compromising activities--listening to ghost stories and coloring pictures of witches. They don't want their kids to dress up in costumes for trick-or-treating or even attending Halloween alternatives.
That response naturally raises eyebrows and provides a good opportunity to share the gospel to those who ask. It's also important that parents explain their stand to their children and prepare them to face the teasing or ridicule of their peers and the disapproval or scorn of their teachers.
Other Christians will opt for Halloween alternatives called "Harvest Festivals" or "Reformation Festivals"--the kids dress up as farmers, Bible characters, or Reformation heroes. It's ironic when you consider Halloween's beginning as an alternative, but it can be an effective means of reaching out to neighborhood families with the gospel. Some churches leave the church building behind and take acts of mercy into their community, "treating" needy families with food baskets, gift cards, and the gospel message.
Those are good alternatives; there are others that are not so good. Some churches are using "Hell House" evangelism to shock young people and scare them into becoming Christians. They walk people through rooms patterned after carnival-style haunted houses and put sin on display--women undergoing abortions, people sacrificed in a satanic ritual, consequences of premarital sex, dangers of rave parties, demon possession, and other tragedies.
Here's the problem with so-called Hell House evangelism: To shock an unshockable culture, you have to get pretty graphic. Graphic exhibits of sin and its consequences are unnecessary--unbelieving minds are already full of such images. What they need tosee is a life truly transformed by the power of God, and what they need tohear is the truth of God in an accurate presentation of the gospel. Cheap gimmickry is unfitting for Christ's ambassadors.
There's another option open to Christians: limited, non-compromising participation in Halloween. There's nothing inherently evil about candy, costumes, or trick-or-treating in the neighborhood. In fact, all of that can provide a unique gospel opportunity with neighbors. Even handing out candy to neighborhood children--provided you're not stingy--can improve your reputation among the kids. As long as the costumes are innocent and the behavior does not dishonor Christ, trick-or-treating can be used to further gospel interests.
Ultimately, Christian participation in Halloween is a matter of conscience before God. Whatever level of Halloween participation you choose, you must honor God by keeping yourself separate from the world and by showing mercy to those who are perishing. Halloween provides the Christian with the opportunity to accomplish both of those things in the gospel of Jesus Christ. It's a message that is holy, set apart from the world; it's a message that is the very mercy of a forgiving God. What better time of the year is there to share such a message than Halloween?