We are in that season of the year known as "Christmas." Elsewhere in this issue you will find a historical summary of the true origins of that holiday which has become such a part of our American culture. As you will see, the holiday did not originate in the Bible. But it cannot be denied that it is during this season that many folks hear the story of the birth of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, over and over again - some perhaps for the first time. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? I believe that hearing about the birth of our Lord is a good thing, even if the origin of the holiday is couched in false religious tradition.
Let me point out a parallel in the Bible. In Phil. 1:15-18, Paul wrote, "Some, to be sure are preaching Christ even from envy and strife, but some also from good will....the former proclaim Christ out of selfish ambition, rather than from pure motives, thinking to cause me distress in my imprisonment. What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed: and in this I rejoice, yes, and I will rejoice."
The point, as I see it, is this: If Paul could rejoice when Christ was preached by those of impure motives, then surely I can rejoice when people focus on the birth of my Lord, even though their motivation for doing so may be rooted in ignorance or acceptance of some false religious traditions. Yes, Paul exposed their false motives and errors. And I intend to point out the errors which led false religious teachers to make December 25th the day for a religious celebration of His birth. But, instead of focusing totally upon the negative, I, like Paul, choose to rejoice that the birth of our Saviour is acknowledged and advertised in a world which needs Him so badly. -- Bob West, The Milpitas Messenger, December, 1995
Return To Messenger Menu
Several years ago, Mr. Louis Cassels, a religious writer for UPI, made the following remarks on the origin of Christmas:
"Date of Festival - At that time [the 3rd Century], December 25th was a pagan holiday widely observed in the Roman Empire as the festival of the Sun God. It was then, as now, an occasion for gift-giving, feasting and general revelry.
"The church 'Christianized' the holiday by inaugurating a special observance called 'Christ's Mass' in honor of the birth of Jesus. (No one knew then, nor knows now, the actual month and day of Jesus' birth, so the church felt free to choose an arbitrary date for the celebration.)...."
"Tuetonic Origin - Decorating evergreens in the honor of the Christ child is a legacy from the Teutonic tribes of northern Europe, who worshipped sacred oaks before they were converted to Christianity in the 8th Century."
According to this authoritative statement, the date of December 25th as the birthday of Jesus is purely an arbitrary decision of religious leaders. No Bible passage may be cited which pin-points the date.
Further, the Catholic Encyclopedia states: "Christmas was not among the earliest festivals of the Church." The Encyclopedia Britannica tells us that "as late as 245 A.D. Origen repudiated the idea of keeping the birthday of Christ." Colliers Encyclopedia tells us that the celebration of Christmas "can scarcely date from the third century for the early Christians did not keep birthdays."
This should explain why we do not enter into the religious observance of Christmas. For to do so would be to act on the forbidden basis of human tradition alone (Matthew 15:9) and invalidate our claim to speak and practice only those things for which we can find divine authority.
Having said all of this, we know of no principle of truth violated in decorating a tree, giving gifts, family dinners, sending greeting cards, and participating in other seasonal customs to which we attach no religious significance.
It is therefore in this spirit that I can wish all of our readers a truly "Merry Christmas" and a joyous holiday season. -- Bob West, The Milpitas Messenger, December, 1995
Return To Messenger Menu
This question is asked in view of Revelation 16:16 which mentions the place "Armageddon." The Jehovah's Witnesses sect and others claim that this, along with Revelation 19:11-21, is a prophecy of a literal battle that is to take place between Christ and his followers and the kingdoms of the earth.
Let us notice what the word means. The English word is derived from the combined Hebrew term Har-Magedon. It means "the mountain of Megiddo," and refers to a famous battlefield located on the Plain of Esdraelon that runs south and east of Mount Carmel. It was there that Deborah and Barak defeated Sisera and his army (Judges 5:19). It was there that Josiah was slain 2 Kings 23:29-30). It was referred to as a place of great mourning (Zechariah 12:11). Just as Marathon was remembered by the Greeks as a place of great victory, and Waterloo was remembered by the French as a scene of great defeat, so Armageddon has become emblematic of any decisive battlefield.
In the highly figurative language of John, which characterizes the book of Revelation, he is referring to the battle between truth and error that began in the First Century, and even now is raging, which will be consummated with the final victory over wickedness when Christ returns for his victorious saints. It is singular indeed that the Jehovah's Witnesses who presently refuse to bear arms, anxiously await the time when they believe Christ will bear arms against the wicked in the "Battle of Armageddon." Of course, inconsistency is the fruit of false teaching. -- Bob West, The Milpitas Messenger, December, 1995
Return To Messenger Menu
[The following excellent article came to my attention some 35 years ago. I have made frequent references to it. I have just "re-found" it and wish to share it with you in its entirety. It originally appeared in the Chicago Daily News and then in the Readers Digest. - RHW]
I walked with my friend, a Quaker, to the news-stand the other night, and he bought a paper, thanking the newsie politely. The newsie didn't even acknowledge it.
"A sullen fellow, isn't he?" I commented.
"Oh, he's that way every night," shrugged my friend.
"Then why do you continue to be so polite to him?" I asked.
"Why not?" inquired my friend. "Why should I let him decide how I'm going to act?"
As I thought about this incident later, it occurred to me that the important word was "act." My friend acts toward people; most of us react toward them.
He has a sense of inner balance which is lacking in most of us; he knows who he is, what he stands for, how he should behave. He refuses to return incivility for incivility, because then he would no longer be in command of his own conduct. When we are enjoined in the Bible to return good for evil, we look upon this as a moral injunction - which it is. But it is also a psychological prescription for our emotional health.
Nobody is unhappier than the perpetual reactor. His center of emotional gravity is not rooted within himself, where it belongs, but in the world outside him. His spiritual temperature is always being raised or lowered by the social climate around him, and he is a mere creature at the mercy of these elements.
Praise gives him a feeling of euphoria, which is false, because it does not last and it does not come from self-approval. Criticism depresses him more than it should, because it confirms his own secret shaky opinion of himself. Snubs hurt him, and the merest suspicion of unpopularity in any quarter rouses him to bitterness.
A serenity of spirit cannot be achieved until we become the masters of our own actions and attitudes. To let another determine whether we shall be rude or gracious, elated or depressed, is to relinquish control over our own personalities, which is ultimately all we possess....The only true possession is self-possession.
[NOTE: Isn't that a dandy article? Why not read it over again and then ask yourself, "Am I acting or reacting?" "Am I in complete possession of my emotions and actions or am I letting my friends and brethren make a balloon out of me which explodes at the slightest prick?" Now we should not be hypocritical in our actions. But we should cultivate an even-keeled emotional stability which will enable us to take "snubs": and hurtful words or deeds without "upsetting our boat" and causing everyone else to get wet in the process. - RHW] -- The Milpitas Messenger, December 1995
Return To Messenger Menu
While in Nigeria in 1979, Brother E. B. Udofia and I traveled to the small village of Nung Ekim, in the Cross River State, where I addressed a church of about 150 souls. Their small bamboo and mud building was barely large enough to accommodate everyone, so many sat on the outside. After my lesson, one of the brethren was asked to stand and (through an interpreter) relate to me the story of how the church was planted in that village. I was completely fascinated and deeply moved by what I heard. Let me repeat the account for you.
In 1962 there was no church of Christ in Nung Ekim. However, there were several denominational bodies. Two young boys, members of a Holiness group, were reading the Bible one day and discovered Romans 16:16, "the churches of Christ salute you." After discussing the matter, they concluded that that was surely the proper name for the Lord's church. They decided, as children are wont to do, to "play church." They built a small shack with sticks and palm leaves by the side of the road, and erected a small sign on it - "The Church of Christ." They would sit in their little building, read the Bible and sing religious songs. One day a member of the Lord's church who lived in a nearby village, happened to come along this road and was much surprised to see this sign, not being aware of any "church of Christ" in that village. He saw the two boys and tried to question them. At first, they ran away. But he was finally able to talk with them and began to meet with them and teach them. Neither of these boys knew of the existence of the church of Christ in any area.
These boys' interest in studying the truth soon secured the interest of others in the area. Preachers and other brethren came into the village and began street preaching and other studies. This precipitated a debate with the Holiness people on the subject of "miraculous healing." Many learned the truth and were baptized. Among them were these two boys who wanted to be members of the church they first read about in the Bible. The young man who was telling me this story had been one of those boys.
Thus, the church was planted in Nung Ekim and flourishes there today. They meet across the road from the exact spot where those two boys built their stick church building! -- Bob West, The Milpitas Messenger, December, 1995
Return To Messenger Menu
The study of the origin or our words is at once an interesting and profitable pursuit. According to some scholars, our word "sincere" has a fascinating background.
In ancient Rome, the potters would hide the imperfections in their vessels by filling them with wax. Their best products were, in the Latin tongue, sine cera, meaning, "without wax." Our word, "sincere," is said, by some, to come from this source.
What a beautiful illustration of what it means to be "sincere and without offense till the day of Christ" - Phil. 1:10. With a little wax and paint, the most inferior vessel can be made to appear perfect - on the surface. But its inherent weaknesses will ultimately be found out. Just so, the Christian's character is not to be full of imperfections which are hidden from view by the wax of hypocrisy. His life and character should be sound through and through. He must be SINCERE! -- Bob West, The Milpitas Messenger, December, 1995
Return To Messenger Menu