The Back Story on the Real Christmas Pt. 1 by Chris White

When you deal with a topic like the Christmas story, you are standing on holy ground.  First of all we are looking at sacred history.  This means that not only are most of the facts contained solely in the Holy Bible, but also that this event is so sublime and so mysterious that we must treat it with the greatest respect.  Though the world sees Mary, Joseph, and the baby Jesus lying in a manger, this is not the story of the humble beginnings of the world’s most famous moral instructor, it is the story of God becoming a man for the purpose of redeeming us; and like all men, he starts out as a baby.  Secondly, it is a very well-known and cherished story by millions.  Such stories must be treated with care and if a traditional aspect must be revised, it must be done with gently and with a sound explanation for the known facts.  The opposite of this is the journalistic approach so often employed today that loves to “debunk” everything in the name of truth, yet so often in that process ignores the fact that not all reason is free of personal agenda.  Of course I believe this story.  It’s my religion.  But even if you don’t share my religion I hope you will enjoy my treatment of this well-known story and maybe learn a thing or two you didn’t know before.

With that as prologue, let’s consider the issue of whether or not Jesus was born on the 25^th of December.  I’ll bet you’ve already made up your mind that this was just an arbitrary date chosen by the church to replace a pagan festival and you very well could be right.  The Romans did celebrate a winter festival called Saturnalia which included gift giving, bonfires, and lots of overindulgence.  And it does stand to reason that when the Roman empire became Christianized that they would seek to retain a winter celebration while removing some of its baser elements.  However, if we stick to the concise information of the Gospels, there is no real reason why Jesus couldn’t have been born on December 25^th.  There are no details in the story that would actually preclude this date.  Sacrificial lambs were kept outside in the winters near Bethlehem.  Shepherds did watch their flocks at night, there was still no room for Joseph and Mary, etc. etc.

The date of December 25^th is also recognized very early in the Church’s history.  Some have thought Christmas was not recognized until after Constantine the Great became the first Christian ruler of the Roman empire in the 4rth century, but earlier writings of the Church indicate that this was a long established belief.  One of the early witnesses to the December birthday for Jesus was Tertullian who was a respected leader and theologian in North Africa. Tertullian lived at a time when none of the first Christians or apostles are still alive, but some of their first successors were.  He states that he has knowledge that in the city of Rome there is a birth record that explicitly states Jesus was born on December 25^th.  Of course we don’t know that Tertullian saw this first hand or just heard about it or even if he did see it if it was some sort of well-meaning but still spurious document.

What troubles many with the December birth is that if Jesus was born on the 25^th, then you would have Annunciation of Mary, the Conception of John, the Birth of John and the Birth of Jesus basically corresponding to the change of all 4 seasons.  This seems a bit overly tidy for real life and more in line with arranging things so as to have one large Church festival in each of the four seasons.  However, it is not unreasonable to think that God would orchestrate this as He was keen on Old Testament Israel observing festivals throughout the entire year.  God is not only the creator of time but of rhythm.

Luke’s Gospel does furnish us with the inaugural date of John the Baptist’s ministry which would fall in the winter months.  Assuming he started at the traditional age of 30 and that he was 6 months older than Jesus as the New Testament indicates, this would put the birth of Jesus in the late spring or early summer.  All the events of the nativity work just as well in a summer scenario as they do in winter.  But we must remember this is based on an assumed age for John the Baptist and an assumed year which may vary due to differences in the modern calendars and the ancients reckoning of time.

My point?  As with all ancient events, pinning down an exact date is often based evidence other than the date itself.  There is evidence for both a winter and summer birth of Jesus; both would fit the story.  But for me, the winter birthday is far more poignant because it is the time of year where darkness has overtaken the light.  But Jesus came into the world to overcome its darkness with His Light and that is a fitting reminder no matter what the season.

On Keeping Calm and Carrying On by Chris White

Recently my wife and me bought some humorous drinking glasses at a souvenir stand while on vacation.  What tickled our fancy about these is that there was a black line around the middle of the glass.  Above the line it said “optimist” and below the line it said “pessimist” playing on the old proverbial question about temperament “is your glass half-empty or half-full?”  These glasses answer the question in a straightforward way: it all depends on how much is still left in your drink.  Of course, if you were having something stronger than a soda in one of those glasses, it would seem more logical that the words “optimist” and “pessimist” would be reversed to reflect one’s sensations based on their consumption.  All kidding aside, it does strike me that whatever your disposition tends to be, your feelings and attitudes tend to follow closely.  If a similar turn of events happened to both a pessimist and an optimist, they might experience the same result in the end, but their experience of those events would be radically different.  An example that underscores this was a CNN news story I watched a couple of years ago about an entire town located in Oklahoma that was leveled in a matter of minutes by a tornado.  As you listened to the survivors tell of their experiences invariably there are two reactions: “we all survived and that’s what’s important” and “after thirty years in this home, we’ve lost everything”.  Both will be sleeping in the Red Cross shelter and eating government surplus MRE’s that night, but one will fall asleep that night with gratitude while the other experiences the disturbing sleep of desolation.

A friend of mine, himself a fellow blogger and a realistic optimist, reminded me of Viktor Frankl’s famous words  “Everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms—to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one’s own way (from Man’s Search for Meaning).”  As an accomplished psychotherapist and Holocaust survivor, Viktor Frankl knew what he was talking about here was true and vital.  Our approach to life, our way of viewing our present circumstances, our way of thinking about our perceived future affects our destiny and sense of well-being.  The good news about all of this is that when life circumstances are beyond our control, we can with the help of God possess a “peace that passes understanding (Phil. 4:7).”  Let me pass on three principles from Scripture that point us in this positive direction.

Consider the words of Jesus about worrying over the most basic necessities of life:

^“ Therefore do not be anxious, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’  For the Gentiles seek after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all.  But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you. Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble (Matt. 6:31-34).”
I would suggest that the first principle is having a clarity that if the God of the entire universe concerns himself with your life (which he does), worry on your part should be downgraded to prayerful patience. When Jesus tells us to not be anxious, he is not describing an attitude of careless unconcern but rather forbidding us to worry ourselves sick about such matters.  To get into that state of mind usually leads us to an unnecessary panic that is quite faithless.  God does exist.  He does care about you.  Tell him in quiet or vocalized prayer what you are needing.  Convert the energy of worry into patient and persistent prayer.
The second principle comes from St. Paul’s letter to the Philippians:
“ I rejoiced in the Lord greatly that now at length you have revived your concern for me. You were indeed concerned for me, but you had no opportunity.  Not that I am speaking of being in need, for I have learned in whatever situation I am to be content.  I know how to be brought low, and I know how to abound. In any and every circumstance, I have learned the secret of facing plenty and hunger, abundance and need.  I can do all things through him who strengthens me (4:10-13)”.
What Paul is describing here is a contented confidence that God will provide the strength you need for what you must do that day.  In the parlance of recovery literature, this is “one day at a time” on steroids.  I chuckle a bit at this because I have had many days that were so bad, I was more on the “one-minute at a time” plan.  But the point is made by me writing this to you right now: obviously I made it through each and every one of those past days.  I believe it was the great missionary to China Hudson Taylor who said where God guides, God provides.  If you are in a hard place today, dare to trust that God will give you all the strength you need for today as you need it.  And tomorrow? Ditto.
The third principle follows: have the perspective that God does permit problems and difficulties to come our way for specific training.  The apostle James wrote “ Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds,  for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness.  And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing (James 1:2-3).” 

When Jesus taught what we call “The Lord’s Prayer” to his disciples, part of that prayer is that God “..will not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from evil.”  What is in view here is not the temptations of the flesh per se, (although they can lead us into all sorts of trouble) but rather the “trials of various kinds” that James speaks of here.  We would be foolish to pray for trials and foolish not be pray to be delivered from them, but absolute fools to think we can live in the present world without our fair share of them.  Often what troubles folks the most is the haunting question “is this happening to me as a judgment because God is mad at me?”  If you think that way let allay your concern by stating the obvious: if God was mad at you, you would probably be dead and in hell right now.  But instead, you’re reading this article.  Thus, the alternative explanation that there are simply some things God wants to build into your life that cannot be done apart from the crucible of personal suffering.  God does not pain our lives gratuitously, but rather purposefully, and that purpose is for good, even if the intentions of those who cause your suffering are completely evil.

We are not taught to be grateful for the trials, but grateful for the certainty that they will build in us a spirit like tempered steel, strong under stress.  Having the perspective that you have more to gain from a hard thing than you’ll lose can and does make it bearable.  Knowing that it is part of God’s specific training program for your life should bring a certain peace that surpasses understanding even in the midst of scary or painful circumstances.

One of the current pop-culture icons is the British propaganda poster from World War II that says “Keep Calm and Carry On”.  Good advice even if the Nazis aren’t bombing your house today.  But the key to keeping calm is not whistling in the dark, but a grateful heart and a sure knowledge that God is in control and bigger than the insurmountable problem you face today.

Why We Cannot Not Believe in the Triune God by Chris White

Rotary phones did have their consolations!

I had an interesting phone call the other afternoon.  The gentleman on the line told my secretary that he had a Bible question and wanted to talk with a pastor.  After the typical greetings my caller asked me a question:  How can I teach people that the Bible says there is only one God and yet also teach God exists in three persons (shorthand for that is the Trinity)?  And specifically why would I teach something which is nowhere directly said in the Bible?  After several attempts at a reply, I was corrected, ridiculed, but most of all endlessly interrupted by my caller and by his statements.   Soon I realized this was not actually a question but a sermon from a zealous Jehovah's Witness evangelist.  While I didn't appreciate his rudeness and scornful attitude, I did like his idea: "the evangelistic crank phone call".  I might even try this myself in the future but that is a different story altogether.

Since this is my official forum, I would like to explain why I believe all true Christians must believe in the Triune God even though there is no explicit statement commanding us to do so.  Simply put, it is the only way we can make sense of Jesus Christ.  The Bible is  clear there is only one God (Deut. 6:4; Ex. 20:3) and there are no other gods and we are to worship no other.  But what are we to make of John 20:28 when "doubting Thomas" saw the risen Christ and looked at his wounds?  "My Lord and my God!", he declares.  Does  Jesus correct him on this?  Absolutely not.  Rather, Jesus actually pronounces a blessing on all people who have not seen Him and yet come to the same conclusion as Thomas did.  To receive the worship of people if you are not God is breaking the first commandment in the worst possible way.  Not only that but to make yourself out to be God (if you are not) is actually the activity of the antichrist according to St. Paul (2 Thess. 2:4).  Jesus is guilty of making Himself out to be God many times in the New Testament.  The many "I am" statements made by Jesus all point to Him being the God of Israel, but in John 10 and 17 it's fairly straightforward: "I and the Father are one" and "I am in the Father and the Father is in me".  This is utter blasphemy if not true, but if true, then Jesus is God.  If Jesus is God and He says there is the Father and Holy Spirit, then what else can be made of this but that there is one God (clearly stated) who exists in triunity (or three persons).

There is an important philosophical underpinning to this argument as well.  Ontologically speaking (and yes, do look up this word under metaphysics), God is by necessity the greatest conceivable Being.  As such, God is immutable or unchanging in His perfections.  As the "GCB" (greatest conceivable Being), it would be impossible for God to become greater than He already is or to degenerate and become less than He is.    If God is not immutable, then He is not God.  Maybe a benevolent Spirit, but a lesser being than the Almighty.  Now this directly relates to Jesus as the Son of God.  If the only-begotten Son of God means a later development in the life of the Father  then this would constitute a change for it would mean that God was not always the Father of the Son but became so at some later point in time which would constitute a change in His status which is not possible for God.  To carry this to a conclusion it would imply that if Jesus is the true Son of God (as He and the writers of the New Testament unequivocally affirm) then He is ontologically connected to God and shares in His immutability.  This connection necessitates a plurality within the Godhead.  This is not to say there are three Gods (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) but one God who exists in a dimension outside of our experience as humans.

The only way around this, ontologically speaking, is to make Jesus of Nazareth a lesser being than God, such as an angel or demi-god as the Jehovah's Witnesses and other cults do, or to make him simply a man who was so in touch with God and so virtuous that God adopted him as his Son as some ancient heretical groups have proposed, or make him a crackpot who just thought he was God and managed to find others to join him in his delusion.   While each of these views has had adherents in the course of history, there is a reason why it has always been a super minority:  it is simply unwarranted by the text of scripture, the broad testimony and understanding of the faithful, and the historic worship of the Christian church.

So no, the Trinity is not explicitly stated in any one verse of the Bible, nor is belief in the Trinity ever commanded as a condition of salvation.  But to borrow from many others much smarter than myself, it is the inescapable implication of the scriptural data we are given in the totality of the Bible.  For the true Christian, the Bible describes and defines God's reality, and if a person is unwilling to believe biblical reality, then what he or she does believe is wishful thinking or magic or just plain crazy, but it certainly isn't the truth.

Now, where did I put that phone number for Kingdom Hall?