Why It's OK to Have a Christmas Tree

At least three times in the last year, I have heard from Christians who are concerned that they shouldn't have a Christmas tree, or maybe shouldn't celebrate Christmas, because many Christmas customs are adopted from pagan customs. Some Christians worry that the date of Christmas was picked to replace pagan holidays such as Saturnalia (likely true), that the Christmas tree came from pagan rituals (uncertain, but possible), or that the star on the tree comes from star worship (not too likely, in my opinion).

To answer this concern, let me ask a very different question: is it OK for Christians to use the names for the days of the week and the months? The days of the week honor Norse gods: Sun day, Moon day, Tiw's day, Odin's day, Thor's day, Freya's day, Saturn day. Some of the months honor Greek and Roman gods (Janus, Mars, Aphrodite, Maia, Juno) while others honor deified Roman emperors (Julius, Augustus). But no one seems to have a problem with this, for a very good reason: when Christians say "Thursday," they are not worshipping Thor, and no one else thinks they are, either. The Bible prohibits idolatry, but idolatry consists of worshipping other gods. Worship is not something that one does unintentionally; it's a matter of the heart.

This is why it's OK to have a Christmas tree, give gifts, put a star on your tree, and celebrate Jesus' birth on December 25 (even if he wasn't born then). When I erect a Christmas tree, none of my neighbors thinks I am worshipping some old druid god, and I certainly have no intent to worship anything. In fact, to genuine pagans, my devout observance of Christmas in honor of Jesus is a testimony to my faith in Christ, not my worship of any other god.

Symbols and words are not permanently tainted merely because they are used by another religion ("I know and am convinced in the Lord that nothing is unclean in itself..." says Paul in Rom 14:14, referring to meat sacrificed to idols). Cults misuse baptism and the Lord's Supper, but that does not mean we should no longer baptize or share in communion. When Solomon built the first temple for God in the Old Testament, there had already been pagan temples for at least two thousand years. The design of Solomon's temple even had some similarities to Egyptian temples. The fact that temples were used by other religions did not make it wrong to build a temple to God or to use the temple as a metaphor for God's people. There are lots of other examples in the Bible of using (or redeeming) terms and symbols from the pagan world. Paul quotes the poem "A Hymn to Zeus" in Acts 17:28. While astrology and the worship of stars is condemned in the Bible, stars are repeatedly used as symbols of Jesus, Israel, and the church - so it is OK for you to put a star on your Christmas tree.

Finally, celebrating Christmas is allowable because the Scripture gives us personal freedom in such matters. In 1 Cor 8-10, Paul tells Christians not to participate in idol feasts, because idol feasts involved acts of worship to other gods, and everyone knew such feasts were designed to honor other gods. But in 1 Cor 10:25-33, Paul says that Christians can eat meat that was sold in an idol market, because it is not an act of worship, and the meat is not permanently tainted. Paul also says that Christians have freedom to celebrate religious holidays or not according to their own conscience, and even warns us not to condemn others for their decisions in these areas of freedom (Rom 14:1-14, Col 2:16-17). The Bible forbids worship of other gods - but celebrating Christmas by putting up a Christmas tree does not constitute worship, especially when we do it in honor of Jesus.

"Do not let what is for you a good thing be spoken of as evil, for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking [or celebrating Christmas or not!], but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit" (Rom 14:16-17). The Christian life is primarily about living out the virtues of Christ, empowered by the Holy Spirit. If Christmas is a good thing for you that leads you to think about Jesus, then enjoy it - but more importantly, make sure that your Christian life is primarily about things that really matter, not minor quibbles about Christmas.

The picture: The Nativity, by an unknown Ottonian, ca. 1025-1050.

Grace to Naaman (2 Kings 5)

Question: Hey Gary, what's this about? it appears the Lord is forgiving Naaman in advance for bowing to another god.

But may the LORD forgive your servant for this one thing: When my master enters the temple of Rimmon to bow down and he is leaning on my arm and I bow there also—when I bow down in the temple of Rimmon, may the LORD forgive your servant for this. 2 Kings 5:18.

This is an interesting passage, because the rest of the Bible is sharply opposed to any acts of worship towards other gods, especially the second commandment (Exod 20:4-5). Daniel's three friends, for example, are honored because they risk their lives by refusing to bow down to the king's idol (Dan 3). A good look at the whole story of Naaman will help us understand, but there will still be some unresolved tensions.

This section of 2 Kings contains a series of miracle stories about Elisha. Each story shows Elisha as an enforcer and executor of God's covenant with Israel. Most prophets call God's people back to the terms of the covenant (the Torah), and warn them about the consequences of continued disobedience. Elijah and Elisha are different from most other prophets in that they themselves carry out the blessings and curses of the covenant. In this story, Elisha brings a blessing of the covenant to a Gentile convert - and not just any Gentile, but an army captain from Aram, Israel's enemy. (Aram is also called Syria, which is not the same as Assyria.)

Naaman decides to trust Yahweh, the God of Israel, by going to Yahweh's prophet for healing. Elisha heals Naaman through a ritual cleansing in the Jordan (an image that may influence John the Baptist's later baptisms in the Jordan). After the healing, Naaman does three things that illustrate his new devotion to Yahweh.

• He asks for two mule-loads of dirt from Israel. Naaman will probably use this to make an altar to Yahweh in his own country.
• He promises to make no sacrifices to any other god. Monotheism was unique to Israelites, so Naaman has a genuine conversion. He will not just add Yahweh to his list of gods.
• He asks for forgiveness: his official duties require him to lend an arm when his elderly master bows down in the temple of Rimmon, so Naaman will naturally kneel down with him.

Elisha gives his blessing (v. 19) to all three. We can understand that Elisha welcomes the first two, but why permit the third? The key prohibition in the OT is against sacrifices to other gods (Exod 22:20). Sacrifice was the most important act of worship in the ancient world. Naaman has shown his loyalty to Yahweh by vowing not to sacrifice to other gods - a vow that will get him in trouble back in Aram, since sacrifice to national deities was often a mark of national loyalty. Naaman may physically kneel as he supports his master, but he will not worship. The story reveals the principle that God cares about the heart more than the actions.

This story also reveals God's grace to Naaman. (btw, "Grace to Naaman" would be a good name for a band, or maybe "Naaman's Grace.") God brings healing to this Gentile outsider, he welcomes him as a convert, and he even allows Naaman freedom to do something that an Israelite would not be allowed. Naaman recognizes Yahweh's grace: he begins and ends his request with "May the LORD forgive your servant."

Most importantly, Naaman will point Arameans to the glory of Yahweh. An army captain who refuses to sacrifice to Rimmon, but is nonetheless healed of an incurable disease - such a thing would be a shock to Aramean society, and would cause them to ask about Israel's God. They might not even notice Naaman's hesitant kneeling in the courts of Rimmon.

Paul does something similar. He allows believers to eat meat sacrificed to idols, claiming that is not inherently an act of worship (1 Cor 8, 10:23-11:1). But he forbids participation in meals devoted to idols, since it is inherently an act of worship (1 Cor 10:14-22).

Christians today facing similar issues have to make the same decision: is the act in question inherently an act of worship? or is it a morally neutral act, not necessarily worship? Christmas trees originated as part of pagan practices, but using one today is not inherently an act of pagan worship. Christians attending Shinto/Buddhist funerals today face a difficult decision: are particular rituals merely part of honoring the family, or are they inherently acts of Shinto worship?

The picture: Triptych of the Cleansing of Naaman, by Cornelius Engebrech, 1520.

Baptized with Water and Spirit

Question: What's the difference between water baptism and baptism by/ in/of/ with the Holy Spirit? If one is baptized in the Holy Spirit, does one need to be water baptized? What does it mean to be baptized by/in/of/with the Holy Spirit?

Quick answer: Baptism in the Spirit is the giving of the Spirit, and it happens at conversion. Water baptism is a meaningful ritual that symbolizes the giving of the Spirit and our conversion, and we should do it right away after conversion.

Long answer: Baptism is derived from washing images and rituals in the Old Testament. The OT prophets often promised that a new age was coming, called the new covenant or the messianic age. They eagerly awaited not only the coming of the Messiah, but also the giving of God’s Spirit on all of God’s people. The prophets often used water as a picture of the cleansing work of the Spirit. It would be a cleansing of the inner person, not just the ritual cleansing practiced under the Law (see esp. Ezek 36:25-27; also Isa 32:15-17, 44:3, Ezek 39:28-29, Joel 2:28-29, Zech 12:10, 13:1).

When John the Baptist began his ministry, he baptized with water. He described this as “a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.” His baptism also prepared the people for the “coming one,” who would baptize with the Spirit (Mk 1:4-8). That is, John’s water baptism was a picture of the giving of the Spirit from the Messiah. So “baptism with the Spirit” is a metaphor for receiving the Spirit. (By the way, there is no difference in meaning between the phrases by/in/with the Holy Spirit.)

But Jesus did not immediately give the Spirit. John tells us that the giving of the Spirit had to wait until after Jesus’ “glorification” – that is, his death, resurrection and ascension (John 7:37-39). This giving of the Spirit (= the baptism of the Spirit) happened first at the day of Pentecost (or maybe in the upper room, but I’ll save that for another post). Even the disciples had not yet received the Spirit, because they had to wait until Jesus’ atoning death.

Although most Christians no longer use the term this way, in the New Testament, “baptism with the Holy Spirit” is another picture of conversion. When we come to Christ, we receive the Holy Spirit, and are therefore baptized with the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 12:13; see also Rom 8:9, 14, 2 Cor 1:21-22, Gal 3:2-6, 4:6). Later in life, we may have many experiences where we sense the work of the Spirit through us. Acts describes these as “being filled with the Spirit” (Ac 4:8, 4:31, 13:9-10, and others).

After the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the church began to practice water baptism immediately upon conversion (Ac 2:41). The water ritual served as a picture of the Spirit baptism that was taking place at conversion. Immersing in water also became a picture of the believer’s union with Christ, dying and rising with him (Col 2:12).

Do we need to get baptized with water? For a full answer, see this post. A quick answer: we don’t need baptism for salvation, but the NT commands it, and it should be a ritual of celebrating our new life in Christ. You can go simple and just sign a marriage contract to get married – but why not have a wedding to celebrate?

Another common view: Pentecostals sometimes use the phrase “baptism in the Spirit” to refer to a significant experience of the Spirit later in one’s Christian life, accompanied by speaking in tongues. They use the term this way because they think all believers should have the same experience as the first disciples: belief in Jesus, and then some time later, baptism of the Spirit with speaking in tongues (as at Pentecost). However, if you read through Acts, you can see that the pattern of Pentecost is never exactly repeated, and is probably a unique historical event like the resurrection of Jesus. Further, the rest of the New Testament never indicates that baptism of the Holy Spirit is a later event, or that it is accompanied by speaking in tongues, or that all believers should speak in tongues.

How many churches can you belong to?

Q: How many churches can you belong to?

I haven't seen any statistics, but people who study the church have noticed that a growing number of Christians in America are involved with two churches. I know some people who primarily serve in one church, and are fed in another church. Other people split their time between two churches because they like different programs at each church, like worship in one church and the children's program in another.

The first thing we should consider is what we mean by church and belonging to. In the first century, Christians already used the word church in several ways: individual house churches (Rom 16:1, 5); all the churches in one town (Acts 11:22, Rev 2:1), and all Christians everywhere (Acts 9:31, Col 1:18). The most important meaning is the last one: all Christians are "baptized by one Spirit into one body" (1 Cor 12:13). So all true Christians, regardless of location or denomination, belong to the one true church. In the first century, Christians were "members" of one house church, but sometimes several house churches met together, and sometimes people (especially leaders) would visit other house churches.

So there is nothing wrong in principle with attending more than one church; in fact, it may be evidence of unity between Christians. But there is a second question: what does it mean to belong to a church? If we walk through the pages of the New Testament, we see a whole list of "one anothers" that should define our churches: love one another, value one another in humility, serve one another, build up one another, forgive one another, be united with one another, and show affection to one another (see here for 60 passages describing how Christians should treat one another). And that's only a start - we could add a whole list of other things that we should be doing as members of our churches.

With that in mind, we need to ask a question about motive: am I attending so that I can be part of the "one anothers" at both churches? Or am I only church two-timing - trying to get what I want from each church? It's possible to bless and be blessed by two churches - or it's possible to just take from each church and give nothing. Whether we attend one or two churches, we need to fully participate, giving and receiving.

If your involvement at two churches blesses other Christians and blesses you, then it may be a good thing. I have a small group Bible study that has people from four churches, and it helps build up all four churches. I attend other churches when they invite me to preach. But if you are just a consumer at both churches, then you should work on engaging in the "one anothers" at just one church.

Judge Not? (Matthew 7:1-6)

Question: "I was discussing sexual immorality with another Christian... and she said that I was not supposed to judge others! I was shocked since I believe God wants us to be holy as He is holy... Doesn't the Bible tell us that we can judge? Don't we all judge others anyway (esp. by their appearance)?"

Judging is one of the most misunderstood concepts in the Bible. Many simply quote Matt 7:1, "Do not judge so that you will not be judged" and assume that is everything the Bible has to say about the topic of making moral evaluations. But they forget that this saying of Jesus was only the beginning of a paragraph (Matt 7:1-6) about making judgments and correcting others. Jesus taught that it is hypocritical to correct a friend's minor flaw while tolerating our own major flaws: "First take the log out of your own eye, then you will be able to see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye." His point is that it would be hypocritical (for example) to correct my friend's failure to tithe while tolerating my own financial dishonesty and lack of generosity towards those in need. And we should not forget that Jesus often judged - he regularly corrected both his opponents and his disciples.

Paul gives balanced advice for making judgments and correcting others in Galatians 6:1-5. "If someone is caught in some sin, you who are Spiritual should correct such a person in a spirit of humility..." Correction requires first making a moral evaluation of behavior based on the teachings of Scripture. The point of judging should only be to help others, not to make ourselves look good. Judging is wrong (and annoys us the most) when it is done in a prideful manner, or is done in a way to hurt people rather than help them.

Scripture regularly advises us to evaluate the character and actions of others. Take a look at 1 Thess 5:14, 2 Thess 3:14-15, James 5:19-20, Matt 18:15-20, Luke 17:3-4, 1 Cor 5:9-13, 1 Cor 6:1-6. In each of these, Christians are required to judge other Christians for the purpose of restoration. We cannot become more like Christ unless we are willing to humbly judge each other's behavior and "spur one another on toward love and good deeds" (Heb 10:24).

The picture: Christ the Judge, Michelangelo Buonarotti, 1537-41 (Sistine Chapel).

Generous Charis

I grew up hearing and reading the Bible during the transition from KJV to NASB and NIV. In my church setting, the transition was mostly welcomed, except by a few pious old-timers who were certain that our prayers were more acceptable to God if they included a generous portion of thees, thous, and Elizabethan-era verb endings.

The KJV had the interesting effect of making some very ordinary words into technical religious terms, since the words dropped out of ordinary use in the centuries since the KJV was translated. One of those words is "grace." Interestingly, the NASB, the NIV, and even (often) the NLT continue to use this word to translate the Greek word charis, even though the meaning of "grace" in English has changed over the centuries.

In modern English, "grace" primarily means something like beauty, charm, or refinement - a meaning that rarely fits what the NT authors meant by charis. Of course, Christians usually learn to fill in a technical religious meaning for the word grace, but charis in Greek did not have a uniquely religious meaning.

Charis has a variety of meanings depending on the context (like all words), but in the sorts of passages where it is translated "grace," it normally means something like "generosity" or "generous gift" (the same meaning it had in English when the KJV was translated). As I have been reading the NT recently, I have been translating charis with "generosity" or "generous gift" wherever such a translation works. Look at some of the passages:

Eph 2:8-9 For by [God's] generosity you have been saved... it is the gift of God.
Gal 1:3 Generosity and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Phil 1:7 It is only right for me to feel this way about you... since you all are partakers with me of [God's] generosity.
1 Cor 15:10 But by the generosity of God I am what I am [that is, an apostle]; and his generosity towards me was not wasted, but I labored more than all of them; yet not I, but God's generous gift which was with me.

There are some other passages where "generosity" seems to be a less fit translation, expecially in Romans. I haven't yet checked what the standard references (BDAG, NIDNTT, EDNT, TDNT, etc.) have to say on this, but it seems that charis is used in these passages to describe God's generous forgiveness. For example:

Rom 5:20 The Law came in so that transgression might increase; but where sin increased, [God's] generosity overflowed even more.
Rom 3:24 ... being justified freely by his generous gift through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus.

Although this started for me as a thought experiment in translation, it has resulted in a great deal of thought about God's generosity. It is striking that Christ's life and death on our behalf is described as a generous gift to us. Paul's calling as an apostle, and our calling to serve in the church today, is a generous gift. Paul chose to start most of his letters with a prayer for God's generosity and peace. I do not think often enough of God as a generous God, a gift-giving God, a God who is characterized by his beneficence. Yet he is.

Charis to you and peace from our generous God in 2009.

The picture: An altar piece, ca. 1260, by an unknown German master. The middle panel is a gnadenstuhle or "Pillar of Grace," a common way of depicting the Trinity. The side panels depict Mary and John.

What Did Jesus Teach After the Resurrection? (Part II)

In the last post, I summarized Jesus' post-resurrection teaching. Jesus taught about:

• his death and resurrection
• the church
• his return

The NT authors left us only a few significant summary statements about each of these topics, although Acts suggests that Jesus taught on more than one occasion over the 40 days after the resurrection. He did not teach constantly, however, as the limited list of resurrection appearances (1 Cor 15) suggests. We do know that he talked for a few hours on at least one occasion (Lk 24).

However, it is not unusual for the NT authors to summarize Jesus' teachings. Jesus' entire early preaching ministry is summed up with a single sentence, "The time is fulfilled, and the Kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the good news" (Mk 1:16). Even the Sermon on the Mount is probably a summary of a much longer sermon. It can be read aloud in less than twenty minutes, yet we know that Jesus routinely taught all day (Mk 6:34-35). The gospel writers were comfortable giving accurate summaries of Jesus' teachings. It is reasonable to guess that Jesus did not say anything else of great significance beyond what is recorded in the NT, or one of the eyewitnesses would have recorded it.

As you celebrate Easter, meditate on what Jesus thought was most important before he ascended: his death and resurrection, the meaning of the church, and Jesus' return. These three themes also dominate our celebration of the Lord's Supper: as one body, we share in the cup and the bread (1 Cor 10:16-17) and we "proclaim the Lord's death until he returns" (1 Cor 11:26).

The picture above is from a Chinese Bible of the 1800s; it portrays Jesus' appearance to the disciples in the locked room.

Enough of Eutychus Already

One of my friends asked if my blog would be about something besides Eutychus. "But why?" I asked. "Everything you need to know about life you can learn from Eutychus." All Eutychus, all the time.

OK, maybe not. But one more post on Eutychus will help provide the final touches to the story. To understand the heart of the story, read the last post on the topic. But there are some other interesting side notes to the story that make it come alive even more.

• It was the Easter season (Acts 20:6, "Unleavened Bread"). Quite likely, Paul was preaching about the death and resurrection of Christ before Eutychus died and was raised.
• The church was meeting on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7). This is perhaps the first reference to the Christian practice of worshipping on Sunday. At first, Christians worshipped on the Jewish Sabbath, which is sundown Friday until sundown Saturday. Christians increasingly began to worship on Sunday, apparently to have a weekly celebration of the resurrection of Christ. They also met during the week in people's homes (Acts 2:46).
• Since it was Sunday, that means Eutychus and the rest of the church had worked all day. Jews and Christians originally rested on the Friday/Saturday Jewish Sabbath. Pagan Romans and Greeks did not keep a weekly rest day (in fact, they sometimes mocked Jews for this practice). However, Roman law protected the Jewish right to observe the Sabbath. There was not yet a Sunday rest custom, and Roman law would not have granted it. This probably explains Eutychus' sleepiness - he worked all day, and then listened to Paul teaching in a warm room for several hours.
• The Christians at Troas met "to break bread." This probably included both a meal together and the celebration of the Lord's Supper, much like Paul describes in 1 Corinthians 11:20-22. Paul condemned the practice in Corinth only because they were misusing it - some going hungry, some overeating and getting drunk.
• Eutychus is described as a "young man" (Greek neanias) and "boy" (pais). It was common to use the second term to describe a boy aged 10-14 (although it can be used in other ways).
• When Paul goes downstairs to find Eutychus dead, he stretches himself out on the dead boy and embraces him (Acts 20:10). Why? Paul is imitating Elijah and Elisha from the Old Testament (1 Kings 17:21, 2 Kings 4:34). In both cases, Elijah and Elisha felt personally (although unintentionally) responsible for the death of a boy. In both cases, they stretched out on the dead boy, embraced him and asked God to raise him. In the middle of Paul's distress over the death of Eutychus, he took a step of faith and acted like Elijah and Elisha. That also took a great deal of boldness, since Elijah and Elisha were great heroes - not necessarily the sort of men just anyone can imitate!

OK. Now look at the tools we used to interpret the Eutychus story:

• Far context: looking at the themes and purposes of the book of Acts, we saw that Luke included this story to show the vitality of the early church (see Eutychus, Part II and Eutychus, Part III).
• Near context: looking at the nearby story in Acts, we saw that the story of Eutychus showed Paul as a model apostle (see the end of Eutychus, Part III).
• Historical-cultural context: in this post, we saw how knowledge of the history, culture, and Old Testament background can add significantly to our grasp of the story.