What Christmas Means to Me

Stevie Wonder (and a lot of others) sang What Christmas Means to Me, a warm song about the meaning of Christmas ... with very little connection to ... you know ... the real meaning of Christmas. The song speaks of candles and mistletoe, snow and carols, smiling faces and touching cards, pretty lights and singing choirs, and ... gifts ... oh, yeah ... gifts from Santa. Okay. Sure. All warm and fuzzy. But ... real? You see, Satan is in the business of offering cheap knock-offs ... poor substitutes for God's "good" and "perfect" gifts (James 1:17). We see it in "love" today where God's "unconditional, selfless giving" is replaced with "a warm affection." We see it in "marriage" today where God's "lifetime union" is replaced with "as long as we both shall love." And we see it in Christmas. All those things in that song are good and pleasant ... but ... cheap when compared to the truth.

My favorite version of the Christmas story isn't found where most people might look. It's not Matthew's or Luke's. They're excellent and I enjoy them immensely. It's not even John's, "In the beginning was the Word ... and the Word became flesh ..." (John 1:1-14) story, although that's closer to it. No ... mine is in Philippians.

Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though He was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. (Php 2:5-8 ESV)

The popular Christmas hymn, Hark the Herald Angels Sing, includes this line: "Mild He lays His glory by." That's the Philippians version. Jesus in the form of God did not cling to that glory, but ... emptied Himself. "Have this mind among yourselves." The Christmas story is a phenomenal story of a King who stepped down from His throne, the Greatest that became the least ... for you and me. The story (John 3:16) is of a Father who gave up His Son ... for you and me.

Lights and trees, snow and candles, even "good will" toward everyone ... these are all good things ... to varying degrees. But they pale in comparison to the Good Thing that Jesus did when He took off His glory and put on our flesh ... His ultimate cost for our ultimate salvation. He became sin for us that we could be His righteousness (2 Cor 5:21). That story is so much bigger than tinsel and presents and even "Jolly Old Saint Nick."

Fractured Christmas Carols - A Reprise

Full disclosure. I did this back in December of 2015, a sort of extra-length dad joke, I guess. And my wife has been listening to hours and hours of Christmas music. So ... I've gotta do it again ...
_______________
I don't know. Maybe I'm missing something. I just don't get what everyone sees in these Christmas songs you hear all around.

Some of them do it to themselves. On what planet, for instance, could you see "three ships come sailing in to Bethlehem", a landlocked town in Israel? And everyone knows that you put decks on ships or on patios, but not in halls. And I have to say I think it is cruel to be pointing to the mother who just delivered her first child and referring to her as "round yon virgin". Mean ... just mean. And, seriously, how exactly do you "troll the ancient yuletide carol"? Seriously. Say, when did "jingle belling" and "mistletoeing" become verbs? And what, do you suppose, the verb tenses would look like? "Jingle belled", "jingle belling", "have jingle bellen"?

Others, however, just seem really out there if you're not paying close attention to the words.

Take, for instance, the Nat King Cole classic, The Christmas Song. I mean, sure, it's true. I'm sure that everybody does know a turkey -- that office clown or the conspiracy nut down the street or something -- but why put it in a song? "Everybody knows a turkey, and some mistletoe helps to make the season right." In what way does some mistletoe make it better knowing a turkey? Or is it safe having Santa flying around while under the influence? "We know that Santa's on his way. He's loaded; lots of toys and goodies on his sleigh." I mean, that's just not right.

And, seriously ... in Jingle Bells ... The horse was lean an lank, ran into a bank ... "And then we got upsot"?? I didn't mess with that at all. That's the actual word in the song.

Bing Crosby was known for his song about his thoughts about the girth of Christmas. Why? Who dreams of a wide Christmas? What does that even mean? Winter Wonderland isn't much better. "Later on we'll perspire while we sit by the fire." Ooo, that's really appealing, isn't it?

And tell me, why did Olive pick on Rudolph? You know, "Olive, the other reindeer, used to laugh and call him names." Someone should have done something about that bully reindeer.

Something I've never figured out is exactly who Harold Angel is. (Someone told me he was a famous journalist whose full name was Harold Angelsing.) You think about that a moment while I try to decipher "In egg shells is Dale."

True story. I was in a choir in my youth and the leader told us, "The words are important. If you don't understand something, ask." So I said, "What is 'See the blazing yule before us'?" My friend said, "It's Euell Gibbons picking a hickory nut in a forest fire." (I guess you'd have to remember Euell Gibbons's commercials for Grapenuts cereal where he'd hold up some nature item and say, "This is a pine tree. They are edible, you know.") Strange stuff in those cheerful tunes.

Afterthought
Do you suppose what I've just been doing would be correctly termed "trolling the yuletide carol"?

Christmas Stories

There are lots of Christmas stories. Rudolph, Santa, stories about angels among us, even a Die Hard movie. (Bet you didn't know that was a Christmas movie.) But, honestly the only real Christmas stories come from the Gospels. Mark's Gospel skips the origins episode, so to speak. He starts with John the Baptist preaching about Jesus. But we have others. The most famous Christmas story comes from Luke alone. Luke covers Gabriel's announcement to Mary (Luke 1:26-38), the trip to Bethlehem (Luke 2:1-7), the shepherds and the angels (Luke 2:8-21), all stuff that form our clearest images of the Advent. Matthew adds the wise men (Matt 2:1-12), but that wasn't at Christ's birth (Matt 2:7,16). Still, we count it as part of our Christmas story.

What about John's Gospel? He doesn't have that ... does he? I consider John's account to be the most important -- of having the most import. Here's what John writes.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. (John 1:1-3)

There we have His "origins" -- existing as God from all eternity. Don't miss that. Then John writes,

And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:14)

That, dear readers, is the Christmas story. Stables and wise men, shepherds and angels, announcements and declarations, they're all part of the story, but the actual story is God ... became flesh. God's best expression of Himself -- the Word -- became flesh. He dwelt among us. The One who made the world became part of His world (Heb 1:1-2). The eternal God emptied Himself and became a servant ... who came with the express purpose of dying for us (Php 2:5-8). Tinsel and treats are fine. Songs and services are great. But ... "God with us." That's the real Christmas story, regardless of how many wise men there were, where the stable was, or whether or not the angels sang or spoke. God with us. Isn't it sad that we can get bored with that concept?

Christmas Carol Quiz 2. Just Because.

Look, these are busy days before Christmas, and, while I am a little pressed for time and a little lazy, I actually enjoy this kind of thing. So I'm offering this special ... reprise of a post from 2006.

I've received these carol quizzes over the years and I enjoyed them. I thought you might as well. (Again, the answers will be in the comments, so if you want to play, don't look there yet.)

1. Bleached Yule
2. Castaneous-colored Seed Vesicated in a Conflagration
3. Singular Yearning for the Twin Anterior Incisors
4. Righteous Darkness
5. Arrival Time: 2400 hrs -- Weather: Cloudless
6. Loyal Followers Advance
7. Far Off in a Feeder
8. Array the Corridor
9. Bantam Male Percussionist
10. Monarchial Triad
11. Nocturnal Noiselessness
12. Jehovah Deactivate Blithe Chevaliers
13. Red Man En Route to Borough
14. Frozen Precipitation Commence
15. Proceed and Enlighten on the Pinnacle
16. The Quadruped with the Vermillion Proboscis
17. Query Regarding Identity of Descendant
18. Delight for this Planet
19. Give Attention to the Melodious Celestial Beings
20. The Dozen Festive 24 Hour Intervals

The 12 Days of Christmas

I learned something new today. We've all heard, I expect, about the "12 days of Christmas." You know, that extremely expensive period when "my true love" keeps compounding the gifts he or she gives until I have more maids a-milking and geese a-laying than I could ever possibly need. Okay, okay, that's the song, but what are the "12 days of Christmas"?

Apparently the 12 days of Christmas mark the amount of time Christians believe it took the wise men to travel to Bethlehem. Now, I didn't know that Christians believed that. I can't imagine where the notion that the wise men arrived 12 days after His birth came from. For reasons I don't quite grasp, this is presented as fairly universal among Christians, although the timing varies in different groups. First proclaimed in 567 AD by the Roman Catholic Church, it somehow became part of a lot of churches' traditions. Some assign a saint to be acknowledged on each day. Some see significance on that 12th day (Epiphany). Some assign significance to the gifts in the song as "code" for Christian values (for instance, "3 turtle doves" is code for "the Trinity"), which, of course, is utter nonsense, but still put forth as a good thing.

So, apparently, a not small number (certainly not all) of Christian sects have taken a thoroughly unbiblical (that is, not found in Scripture) tradition and made it "sacred." They expound on the value of such a practice. ("You can use the 12 days to do more personal study, pray, expand the idea of Christmas, etc.") Me? I'm in favor of expanding the awareness and significance of the Incarnation, but I don't need a "sacred tradition" that doesn't come from the Word to do so. I can't quite say whether I find such a practice good or bad, but I see real danger in creating new "sacred" things where God never saw fit to do so. I think ... and this is just me ... I'll just skip that part.
________
Postscript. Did you know that the original words for those 4 birds were not "calling birds"? The original words were "four colley birds," where "colley" referred to "black", a reference to blackbirds. And they think the "five gold rings" referred to the band on a pheasant's neck. Thus, the first seven gifts were birds. Hmmm, fun stuff I never knew.

What Do You Want for Christmas?

It has always struck me as odd that we give Christmas gifts to each other. Oh, sure, it's because the wise men gave gifts, but, still. Imagine this birthday party. "Thanks for inviting me to Your party, Jesus. Oh, no, these gifts aren't for you. They're for the other people you invited." Really strange. So I got to wondering. If we were actually going to celebrate Christ's birthday, what do you suppose His birthday wish list would look like?

Jesus said, "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments" (John 14:15) It seems obvious, then, that Jesus would like my obedience. Easy, right? I'm doing it every day, right? Well, actually, no. When a lawyer asked Jesus about the great commandment, He said, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets" (Matt 22:37-40). If all the commandments rest on those two, I both have a good roadmap and a clear indication that I'm not obeying His commandments. Jesus repeatedly called on people to follow Him. He told His disciples, "If anyone would come after Me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow Me" (Matt 16:24). Jesus ... gulp ... would like me to take up a cross and follow. He wants me to ... lose my life (Matt 16:25). Of course, it isn't as bleak as it sounds. He wants me to have an abundant life (John 10:10). But, what He wants from me is death to self. He wants us to believe (John 6:29). He wants us to repent (Matt 4:17). He wants ... a lot of things. It looks like He actually has quite a list. And those are just a few of them.

We often have this saying. "It's the thought that counts." Jesus was always concerned about the heart (e.g., Matt 15:16-20). Perhaps the best gift we could give Jesus for His birthday would be our hearts, submitted, worshiping, ready to obey. A renewed heart can love Him, and loving Him produces obedience. The little drummer boy gave his talent. I think I'll give Him my heart ... over and over.

Santa Christ or Satan Claws?

Our familiar Christmas character, Santa Claus, has a lesser known origin. Saint Nicholas (270-343AD) was the Bishop of Myra. He had a reputation for generosity, the reason for his modern "job" of Santa Claus. There are many tales of his kindness, even if they can't be verified. Nicholas of Bari was present at the Council of Nicaea (325AD) for the debate over the Arian heresy. Arius argued that Jesus was not God, but was a created being. The story goes that Nicholas lost his temper and either slapped or punched Arius for his heresy, and was imprisoned for it. I think I would have liked Nicholas for his fervor for true doctrine. But, what about his "protégé," our modern Santa Claus? Nicholas sought to be ... saintly, a good model of Christ. Is Santa such a model?

Santa, as we all know, knows who's naughty and nice. Jesus knows, too. Check. He rewards the nice kids with gifts. Well, actually, Jesus forgives the sins of those who repent and believe, so ... not quite check. Santa threatens to put coal in the stockings of the bad kids ... but never, ever does it. Jesus promises judgment to those who don't repent, and certainly carries it out in the end. Absolutely not check. Our modern Santa is a white-haired "deity" kind of being who is "kindly" and certainly not judgmental. Santa acknowledges "naughty" as well as "nice," but ends up putting all kids in the "nice" category. Definitely not just. His primary job is to give everyone (well, at least kids) what they want -- a divine butler, if you will. This character is so far from Christ as to suggest something ... devious, deceitful ... dare I say ... satanic.

Our Santa Claus, then, modeled after a true believer and follower of Christ, offers Satan's version of a god who is only nice and never judgmental. This version tries very hard to give everyone what they want and, well, darn it all, sometimes just can't. A more destructive image of a "saint" could probably not be found. I would definitely put our modern "Santa" in the category of "Satan Claws" rather than anything Christ-like.

Christmas Mystery

My wife loves Christmas time. She decorates all the time in various seasons, but this one is the mother of all decorations. She loves Christmas movies and Christmas songs. I try to hold her back a little. "Can we at least wait until after Thanksgiving?" So on December 1st, she fired up the Christmas music. "It's legal now," she said. And it has been on since. It's interesting to me the variety of people singing Christmas music. Obviously there are Christian artists, but all manner of secular artists do, too. I mean, Barbra Streisand, Jewish, has a Christmas album (at least one). Frank Sinatra, whose life in many way epitomized the anti-Christian lifestyle, has Christmas albums. Modern rappers and rockers have Christmas albums. The Pentatonix sing Silent Night on their last Christmas album, for pity sake. It seems like every major artist has at least one Christmas album with at least one, honest-to-goodness praise song of Christ who came. What's up with that? So many whose lives oppose anything like Christ sing praises to Christ at Christmas when you'd think they'd prefer to not even acknowledge Christmas at all. What's that all about?

It is, I believe, the story of eternity. Since the beginning -- Adam and Eve in the garden -- mankind has been at war with God. It has been said, in fact, that the most offensive verse in the Bible is "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" (Gen 1:1). Paul says, "For although they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks to Him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened" (Rom 1:21). So Scripture says, "For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot" (Rom 8:7). And, yet, God is not dead. Why? Well, I think the problem is not God. It's His authority. It's His Sovereignty. We do not want to be told what to do. Like recalcitrant children, we shake our fists in His face and yell, "You're not the boss of me!" And, yet ... we desperately want what He has to offer. So we hang up plaques that say, "So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love" (1 Cor 13:13) and "The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace ..." (Gal 5:22). Because, who doesn't want love, joy, peace? Who doesn't want hope? So, even as sinful beings, we don't want God, but we sure want what He has to offer.

I think Christmas appeals to the secular world because the secular world, deep down, wants the peace and love and joy that God offers. They don't want it on His terms, but they want it. So they'll sing Christmas songs about peace and joy and love and overlook the claims of Christ as redeemer because, well, they want what He offers. At times it bothers me. "That's not yours. Give it back." But I finally settle on Paul's approach. "What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice. Yes, and I will rejoice" (Php 1:18). These dupes find themselves singing incredible truths, perhaps for a buck or for their wish for what God has to offer without the God who offers it. But they're singing truths, and God is able to use that. All truth is God's truth, so I will rejoice even if it comes from the mouth of a pagan ... or even a rapper.

Christmas, 2023

It's Christmas Day, the day we celebrate God, the Son, taking on human form and living here on earth where He would live a sinless life, die on the cross for our sins, and rise again so that we can have peace with God and eternal life with Him. Maybe you object to December 25th as the day. Don't let that stop you from celebrating, preferably daily, God's unspeakable gift (2 Cor 9:15).

There are lots of ways we celebrate His birth, His life, His death and resurrection ... all of it. I'm going to offer you a gift today.

³¹ What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? ³² He who did not spare His own Son but gave Him up for us all, how will He not also with Him graciously give us all things? ³³ Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. ³⁴ Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died — more than that, who was raised — who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us. ³⁵ Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? ³⁶ As it is written, "For Your sake we are being killed all the day long; we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered." ³⁷ No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. ³⁸ For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, ³⁹ nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Rom 8:31-39)

It is, perhaps, too wonderful to imagine, but it's all true. Who can be against us? No one! Good to know in a culture that is increasingly hostile to Christ and His people. What good will God withhold from us? Nothing! Good to know in a world that is immersed in sin and decay. Who will separate us from His love? Absolutely nothing! Even the "worst" — death, tribulation, suffering, danger, persecution — is classified as victory. In all of that we are "more than conquerors."

So, have a merry Christmas and a joyous New Year as you remind yourself (often, preferably) of the unspeakable gift we received all those centuries ago that has left us in this unbelievably blessed position of being forgiven and loved and supplied and taken care of by God.

The Theology of Santa Claus

(On this Christmas Eve, I thought I'd re-run this post from 2007.)
________
Have you ever considered what kind of theology we can glean from Santa Claus? "No," you say, "why should we?" Well, think about it. Who is omnipresent? Who is omniscient? Who is benevolent? Who knows who is "naughty and nice" and rewards people based on that? It doesn't take a lot of thought to realize that Santa is a god. No one else can do what he does without being supernatural. And then there is the natural connection of Santa Claus to Christmas, making him theologically connected from that angle as well. So ... what kind of theology does Santa give us?

"He knows who is naughty and nice." Santa Claus is supposed to know who is good and who is bad. Based on this, Santa will either give nice gifts to the nice and a lump of coal to the naughty. So far, so good. God, too, knows who is good and who is bad. It's easier for God, however. "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one" (Rom. 3:10-12). "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom 3:23). Santa's theology, then, is that people are basically good. There are a few naughty, but down deep people are, by nature, good.

How does one go about getting on the good side of this minor deity? It's very simple; be good. To curry the favor of Santa Claus, all you have to do is good works. You know ... the standard worldly means to curry God's favor.

What about the naughty folks? Well, we all know that they are supposed to get nothing from Santa (or, at best, coal). That's "justice". On the other hand, have we ever actually seen that happen? Does Santa ever really refuse a child a gift at Christmas? Well, despite all the warnings, we all know that the red-suited guy is too kind to shortchange children. The theology? Relax ... there is nothing to fear. There is no justice. There is no punishment. There are no consequences for sin.

What is the point of Santa? What is he all about? Santa is all about making people happy. His entire existence is devoted to giving people what they want. Theologically, then, we can easily conclude that the purpose of deity is to cater to the desires of humans everywhere. His whole purpose should be to make people happy ... especially by giving them what they want.

Think about it. If we were to devise a deity, what would he be like? He'd be old and white-haired -- a very common conception. He'd be a smiling deity. An angry God is just not acceptable. He'd be interested in good and bad, of course, but not so much so that he'd actually do anything really harmful to anyone over it. No, he'd be a jolly type that would cheerfully warn against doing bad without actually intending any consequences. His sole, overarching concern would be our happiness. There is, after all, nothing more important than us and our happiness.

Why is it that, even in Christian circles, Santa is sacrosanct? Don't question him. Don't even suggest to children that he doesn't exist. It is wrong -- evil -- to tell children there is no Santa. Why is it that we lie to our children about Santa and expect them to believe us when we talk about Christ? Santa denies absolutely fundamental biblical theology like Man's basic sin nature, God's grace (unmerited favor), justification by faith apart from works, the justice of God, His hatred for sin, His holiness. Instead of God and His glory as the central issue, Santa makes us and our happiness the central issue. There is so much false theology to overcome. And there is the damage of parents who knowingly lie to their children. What could possibly be the up side of teaching our children that there really is a Santa Claus?

The Christmas Conspiracy -- Reprise

I originally wrote this back in 2013, but it always makes me smile to hear anti-Christ types singing songs in praise of Jesus, so I'm bringing it up again.
________
You know, just about every popular singer on the planet, past or present, has done some sort of Christmas album. I mean, it's almost unavoidable. Where else are you going to hear Snoop Dogg sing "Santa Claus Goes Straight to the Ghetto" or the heavy metal version of "O Christmas Tree"? (I didn't make those up. They're out there.) But it is almost an indispensable part of the season these days to hear folks like Frank Sinatra (suspected of mob ties) and Barbra Streisand (a Jew) singing lyrics like "He rules the world with truth and grace, And makes the nations prove The glories of His righteousness, And wonders of His love" or "Silent night, holy night, Son of God, love's pure light, Radiant beams from Thy holy face, With the dawn of redeeming grace, Jesus, Lord, at Thy birth"? Now, of course, these folk don't mean what they're singing and they may not even be aware that they're singing it, but it is, nonetheless, being sung, celebrated, recorded, sold, and heard.

Have you ever looked at the theology we've managed to slip into the widely popular Christmas carols everyone has heard? Very clever.

James Chadwick gave us the English version of the French hymn we know as Angels We Have Heard on High which includes, "See Him in a manger laid, Jesus Lord of heaven and earth; Mary, Joseph, lend your aid, With us sing our Savior's birth. Gloria, in excelsis Deo!" And we have popular singers declaring Jesus to be the Lord of heaven and earth and singing, in Latin, "Glory to God in the Highest!"

The traditional Hark! The Herald Angels Sing! gives us "Hail the heaven-born Prince of Peace! Hail the Sun of Righteousness! Light and life to all He brings, risen with healing in His wings. Mild He lays His glory by, Born that man no more may die, Born to raise the sons of earth, Born to give us second birth. Hark! the herald angels sing, 'Glory to the new born King!'" Did you get that? I mean, truly astounding! This comes straight from Philippians 2's version of "the Christmas Story" where "although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross (Phil 2:6-8). And they're playing it on the store speakers for everyone to hear.

O Holy Night is a perennial favorite composed by Adolphe Adam in 1847. Translated by minister John Dwight, today's pop singers are happy to use it to remind us " O holy night! The stars are brightly shining, It is the night of our dear Saviour's birth. Long lay the world in sin and error pining, ‘Til He appear'd and the soul felt its worth. A thrill of hope the weary world rejoices, For yonder breaks a new and glorious morn. Fall on your knees! O hear the angel voices! O night divine, O night when Christ was born; O night divine, O night, O night Divine." In our current culture, reminding the world of sin is bad ... unless you do it in a popular Christmas carol.

A 19th century priest, Phillips Brooks, gave us O Little Town of Bethlehem. We all know that one. Good stuff. So we'll all join in and sing, "How silently, how silently The wondrous gift is given! So God imparts to human hearts The blessings of His heaven. No ear may hear His coming, But in this world of sin, Where meek souls will receive Him still, The dear Christ enters in." And we've admitted the bad news -- "this world of sin" -- and the good news, that those who receive Him can be joined with Christ -- the Gospel over the mall audio system.

One of my all-time favorites is What Child is This?. Written by William Chatterton Dix in 1865 and sung to Greensleeves, there are many variations of the lyrics. Still, in most versions you'll find this verse: "So bring Him incense, gold, and myrrh; Come, peasant, king, to own Him! The King of Kings salvation brings; Let loving hearts enthrone Him! Raise, raise the song on high! The virgin sings her lullaby. Joy! joy! for Christ is born, The babe, the son of Mary!" Nested in this beautiful little poem with its simple tune is a wealth of truth. We have the King of Kings. We have salvation. We have the Virgin Birth. We even have the demand to bow to His Lordship -- "Let loving hearts enthrone Him!" So much very, very good stuff in a song you can pick up on any streaming station playing the music of the season.

Some ... are preaching Christ even from envy and strife, but some also from good will; the latter do it out of love ... the former proclaim Christ out of selfish ambition rather than from pure motives .... 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 (Phil 1:15-18).

No, these secular singers aren't preaching Christ, at least not intentionally. No, they aren't even doing it from envy and strife. Well, yes, probably from selfish ambition. But it in a society increasingly hostile to Christians, the message is going out. When my kids were younger I'd ask them, "Are you paying attention to the words you're hearing?" "No, Dad," they'd tell me, "We just like the tunes." Yeah? Then why is it they were singing along? The words, even without their conscious effort, were sneaking into their brains. And at this time of year from just about every available speaker pop singers and the rest are absentmindedly smuggling God's truth into the minds of unsuspecting listeners, little seeds of the Gospel that God can cause to grow in His time. I think it's kind of cool. "In every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed; and in this I rejoice. Yes, and I will rejoice!"

Contradicting a Contradiction

You are all aware, I'm quite sure, that the Bible itself claims to be "God-breathed" (2 Tim 3:16). If God is reliable, then, the Bible is reliable. Jesus said, "Your Word is truth" (John 17:17). Pretty reliable. "Oh, but Jesus's 'Scripture' was the Old Testament." You might claim that, but Peter disagrees (2 Peter 3:16). That's all good, but, of course, you should also be aware that the Bible contradicts itself, right? The Christmas story is one of the clearest. Matthew and Luke are the two Christmas story tellers. Mark and John skipped it. Matthew tells of Joseph's lineage and gives us the story of the wise men and the flight to Egypt. Luke is silent on all that, gives a different lineage, and includes shepherds, angels, and a visit to Jerusalem that Matthew ignores. So, what was it? Did the family flee to Egypt or did they go to Jerusalem and then to Nazareth? Clearly, a manifest contradiction. Or ... was it?

Let's look at the story ... nay, the stories. Jesus was born, and, after eight days, Jesus was circumcised (Luke 2:21). Then, "when the days for their purification according to the law of Moses were completed, they brought Him up to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord" (Luke 2:22). How long was that? According to Leviticus, when a woman gives birth, she is unclean for 7 days (Lev 12:2) followed by 33 days (Lev 12:4), after which she was required to complete a purification ritual (Luke 12:6-8). Thus, the time from birth to completion of purification was 40 days. At that point, then, Simeon met the Messiah (Luke 2:25-35) followed by Anna, the prophetess (Luke 2:36-38). Then Luke says, "When they had performed everything according to the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee, to their own city of Nazareth" (Luke 2:39). What we have here is a sequence. What we don't have here is a complete timeline. That is, we know that Jesus was born, then Jesus was circumcised, then Mary was purified, then the family went to Jerusalem, and finally they went to Nazareth. For a timeline, we know that Jesus was circumcised after 8 days and that the purification period was 40 days, but we don't know how long they were in Jerusalem and we don't know if anything occurred between Jerusalem and Nazareth. Did they, for instance, go to Egypt? If so, for how long? Now, that's an interesting question on its own. The wise men arrived sometime between birth and 2 years (Matt 2:16), but not at birth. (Compare "manger" (Luke 2:7) with "house" (Matt 2:11).) When they left, God warned Joseph to flee to Egypt (Matt 2:13-14), and they only returned after Herod died (Matt 2:15). Note, by the way, that they returned to Israel from Egypt, apparently headed back to Judea -- to Bethlehem. But Joseph was concerned about Herod's brother ruling in Judea, so he opted for a safer place in Galilee -- Nazareth. Now, according to history, Herod died in 4BC. So if Jesus was born in 6BC as most scholars believe today, the longest Jesus could have lived in Egypt was 2 years, although very likely much less. (The closer the magi arrived at the 2 year period, the shorter time Jesus would have spent in Egypt.) So, after the 40 days -- purification period -- did Joseph and Mary return to Bethlehem, flee to Egypt after the visit of the wise men, and return to Nazareth (Matt 2:23) then? Would that be a contradiction to Luke's account? I don't think so. Luke includes nothing like "immediately" or "the next day" or anything like it. You can insert "immediately" if you like, but I could just as easily insert "eventually" and you couldn't prove otherwise. And, just as Matthew's account includes nothing about angels and shepherds and Luke's account includes not a word about magi or Egypt, there is no reason to assume that either didn't happen on the basis of silence. The argument from silence is a poor one.

The way we arrive at the two accounts as a contradiction is by starting with the premise that God's Word is not reliable, that God's Word is not God's Word. He didn't breath it. He didn't supply it. He didn't protect it. In fact, the way we arrive at these two accounts as contradictory rather than complimentary is by assuming that you just can't trust Jesus when He says, "Your Word is truth." And while I would not be surprised if those who don't follow Christ don't trust Jesus or the Bible, I would be surprised if one who steadfastly claimed such could be classified as a follower of Christ.

What About Joseph?

The New Testament begins with the genealogy of Joseph (Matt 1:17), the man who would be Jesus's ... step-father. Joseph was the man who would serve as the earthly father of Jesus, the Messiah, the Son of God. What do we know about Joseph? Precious little.

We know that Joseph was from Nazareth in Galilee (Luke 2:3-5). We know that Joseph was betrothed to Mary. Now, their betrothal was quite different from ours today. Since almost all marriages were arranged in those days (and, by the way, for much of history, up to and including today in parts of the world), Joseph's parents, then, would have engaged in a contract, as it were, with Mary's parents for their children to wed, including paying a mohar -- kind of a dowry -- paid in cash, goods, and/or services. There was a period of engagement in which the fact that they were to wed was made known. Then there was a ceremony that started the betrothal period. During that time, they were not actually married -- living together, etc. -- but they were classified as husband and wife (Matt 1:16, 19). The betrothal period was the time allowed for the groom to prepare a place for the bride. He set up a business and a home, etc. When all was ready, he would return and retrieve his bride. (Does any of that sound familiar (John 14:2-3)?) They would go through a marriage ceremony that could last a week or more and then be married. When we meet Joseph, he and Mary are in that betrothal period (Matt 1:18). We know that Joseph was a kind and conscientious man. We know this because when he found out Mary was pregnant, he knew she had been unfaithful. He had the option to publicly disgrace her, but he opted instead to divorce her quietly so as not to disgrace her (Matt 1:19)¹. We know that he was a man of faith because before he could divorce Mary, an angel visited him and told him this bizarre story about Mary being with child from the Holy Spirit (Matt 1:20-25) ... and Joseph believed and obeyed. When Joseph was warned in a dream to flee to Egypt because Herod would try to kill his son, he didn't hesitate to obey (Matt 2:13-14). He left the same night. Joseph doesn't last long in the Gospels. He was around until Jesus was 12 when they took Jesus to Jerusalem for the Passover (Luke 2:41-42). Joseph was not mindful that Jesus was God Incarnate -- the Son of the Living God -- because Jesus had to remind him (Luke 2:49). We don't see Joseph again in Scripture. We know that Joseph was a carpenter because they referred to Jesus as the son of a carpenter (Matt 13:55). We don't know much else about him.

Frankly, we don't know a whole lot about Jesus's earthly father. The Roman Catholics are pretty sure he was married (polygamist), but history tells us that polygamy was all but gone in Jesus's day. They are also quite sure he was a lot older than Mary, but, that's in order to support the perpetual virginity of Mary (because, after all, how could a husband go his whole life without sex?). We know no such thing from Scripture. What we do know is that he was a conscientious man, diligently pursuing God's instructions, obeying dreams from God without question, and taking care of his family. Asked to do some amazingly difficult things (like marrying a woman that everyone was sure had cheated on him), he obeyed without blinking. He seems to have died at a young age, given his absence from any texts after Jesus's 12th year, but God used him mightily to be a dad to His Son and an example to all us who follow. Thanks, Joseph.
________

¹ In Matthew 19 in the discussion of divorce with the Pharisees, Jesus said not to divorce ... at all (Matt 19:4-6). They questioned Him about giving her a certificate of divorce from Moses (Matt 19:7). Jesus said, "I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery" (Matt 19:9). Jesus did not mention adultery as the exception. The word for adultery was in that sentence (moichaō), but Jesus used "porneia" as the exception. While porneia refers to any kind of sex outside of marital sex (which would include adultery), it seems strange that Jesus would use two different words in one sentence if He meant the same thing. The rational explanation was that the divorce that Jesus allowed on the basis of sexual immorality was not for adultery, but for sexual infidelity during the period of betrothal. (Note: In biblical times, the penalty for adultery wasn't divorce; it was stoning (John 8:1-5).)

Nativity

(Please note: This is largely tongue-in-cheek. Despite the apparent tone, I'm mostly just joking around.)

Nativity. The word means just generally "birth", but it is almost exclusively used for the Nativity -- the birth of Christ. Now, I've already said how important the event is, so you shouldn't be surprised at what I'm about to say. Once ... just once I'd like to see an accurate Nativity scene.

Your typical Nativity scene includes Mary and Joseph in proximity to a manger with a baby in it, at least one shepherd, three kings or magi or whatever you want to call them, a star, and an angel. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Consider. Matthew's account talks about the wisemen/magi/kings. There is no reference to "three." The only reason the tradition is three is because three gifts are mentioned (and Roman Catholic lore with Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar has cemented them in place, including racial indications). We don't actually know how many showed up. We don't actually know where they came from beyond "the East." What we do know is that their arrival caused quite a stir (Matt 2:3), but why would 3 guys on camels cause a stir? What we do know is they were not at the birth. That's right. We have some certain clues on that. Herod ordered the deaths of all male babies under the age of 2, a ridiculous thing to do if He was not even a day old. Further, we knew they were in a stable (or so), but Matthew says they were "going into the house" (Matt 2:11). Not the same place He was born. Not the same time. Moving on, I'm okay with one shepherd, although I'm pretty sure it was the whole group of them, but Scripture says nothing about an angel overhead. The shepherds had a visitation from angels, but nothing is mentioned about being where Jesus was. (And the star didn't move over His home until the wise men arrived ... which we've already discussed.)

Okay, so far has been logic, conjecture, clues and conclusions. This last one, though, is not. We know the shepherds got word from angels and went into town to find "this thing that has happened, which the Lord has made known to us" (Luke 2:15). The following text is explicit. "And they went with haste and found Mary, and Joseph, and the baby lying in a manger" (Luke 2:16). Clear as a bell. When the shepherds arrived, there weren't two parents standing by while a baby laid in the manger. No, no. The text says that entire family -- Mary and Joseph and the baby -- were lying in the manger. So, let me know when you find a version of the Nativity that gets all that right. In the meantime, I'll live with what we've got ... if I must.

Peace on Earth

If I ask you what the angels said to the shepherds, it is almost a certainty that you'd be able to tell me they said, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men" (Luke 2:14). Interestingly, that's the King James Version and almost no other translation says that. They all agree with "Glory to God in the highest." That's fine. They all agree, with minor variations, with "peace on earth." (You know, like "on earth, peace.") But that last phrase ... it's not the same. The King James suggests God's "good will toward men." Most of them say something like "among men with whom He is pleased." Do you see the conditional there? The Contemporary English Version (CEV) says, "to everyone who pleases God." That is, the peace that God is bringing is limited to those with whom God is pleased and not extended to all. British theologian John Gill (1697-1771) understands it to mean that the peace He is bringing is "to the free favour, good will, and pleasure of God towards chosen men in Christ Jesus." Now that's not quite we've heard, is it?

Of course, this has always been a bit of a problem, hasn't it? Regardless of which translation you read, they all say that Christ was bringing "peace on earth." To which many say, "Where's the peace?" According to one link I found, historians estimate that over the past 3,400 years or so, humans have enjoyed 268 scattered years without war. That's 8%. Where's the peace? Did we misunderstand that? No. Jesus said, "I give you peace, the kind of peace that only I can give" (John 14:27). Fine ... where is it? Wait! He went on to say, "It isn't like the peace that this world can give. So don't be worried or afraid" (John 14:27). So, we're not talking about "world peace" in the sense that we like to think of it. We're not talking about a universal "ceasefire." In fact, Scripture warns about making such claims. "While people are saying, 'There is peace and security,' then sudden destruction will come upon them as labor pains come upon a pregnant woman, and they will not escape" (1 Thess 5:3). God condemned those who "have healed the wound of My people lightly, saying, 'Peace, peace,' when there is no peace" (Jer 6:14). No, the world is at war until the end.

What, then? Where's the promised peace? Where's the peace Jesus said He was leaving? It's not, explicitly, the peace that this world can give. What then? In the John 14 text, Jesus was promising them His Holy Spirit (John 14:26). That's peace. And Paul is clear. "Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus" (Php 4:6-7). Believers can find peace in the middle of unrest in their relationship with God. With the Spirit within us and with prayer and supplication with thanksgiving, we can know a peace that is not normal, not human. It is beyond normal comprehension. And it's available ... to all those who are in Christ. So, I guess we know now what the angels meant, eh?

Debunked

It's interesting at this time of year the number of "click bait" offerings I see explaining that science has debunked Scripture. They're in lists, usually. You know, "20 things in the Bible disproved by science." That kind of thing. The first one, typically, is "Creation," because, as we all know, Evolution is a proven thing. I mean, it's not, but most seem to think it is. (At no point has science offered any theory of the origin of everything. Just "since the Big Bang" or the like. Further, "proof" is elusive, even for evolutionary science which, many people are unaware, is constantly changing because it keeps disproving itself.) And so it goes. Israel never crossed the Red Sea. That couldn't happen according to science. No global flood, of course. (It's important that you ignore the signs in nature around the world that might lead you to believe it did happen.) Obviously no one rises from the dead. And so forth. Of course, the definition of "miracle" is "an event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws," so by definition Bible miracles would defy science, but that doesn't bother people today.

I started with "It's interesting at this time of year" because one of the most common "Bible myths" debunked in these lists is the Virgin Birth. Now, there are some miracles without which Christianity could not exist. I'm thinking, first and foremost, of the Resurrection. Even Paul said, "If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain" (1 Cor 15:14). Absolutely essential. But what about the Virgin Birth? Is that important? I would argue it is. I would argue that it is essential. Why? First, from a logical approach, Both Old and New Testaments called for it.

Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel. (Isa 7:14)

"Now, Stan, you know that 'virgin' in that text could be translated 'maiden' and not mean a virgin at all." Okay, got it. So the claim in Isaiah that the sign that God would give would be the ordinary birth of a child to a woman. Got it. Remarkable, isn't it? No, the prophecy and promise was a sign (a common biblical term for "miracle") and a virgin, being with child, would indeed be miraculous. When Matthew quotes Isaiah (Matt 1:23), he refers to a "virgin" as well. You'd think a Jewish writer would know his Jewish Bible, wouldn't you? Another thing. If the Holy Spirit was supposed to lead His people into all truth, why is it that all Christians for all time up until the 19th century (the beginning of scientific inquiry into religion¹) understood it to mean "virgin" and not "young maiden"? That would make Him either an incompetent or an ineffective God, wouldn't it? One other logical possibility: it was just wrong. It's a fairy tale made up by people. Which, then, would mean that the Bible is not reliable for truth statements and Christianity is as much a myth as its source book is. No, no, for these logical reasons and more, "born of a virgin" is essential, not optional. There is, however, another reason why it is essential. Scripture claims that sin and death came "through one man" -- Adam. Through Adam, sin passed to all people. If Christ had been fathered by a human father, He would have inherited a human nature that included sin. But Christ's Father wasn't human. As such, Christ could live a sinless life (Heb 4:15), an absolute necessity for the spotless Lamb of God to take away the sin of the world (John 1:29). In order for Christ's death to effectively pay for the sins of the world, He would have to have no sin Himself. That wouldn't be possible if He was born with a sin nature. Thus, a virgin birth where the father was not human was absolutely necessary.

Of course, not everyone agrees with this. Clearly those who deny it deny the reliability of Scripture. Those who deny it also tend to deny miracles at all. You likely will hear them shooting down Creation and Noah's Flood. They have no problem cutting and pasting their Bibles so the stuff they don't agree with is erased and new stuff is inserted to make it more palatable. But if "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work" (2 Tim 3:16-17) and God is faithful and true, then those who deny the Virgin Birth or the rest do so at their own peril, because they are denying what God's Word declares to be true, and Jesus said, "Your word is truth" (John 17:17). It's kind of hard to be classified as a Christian -- a follower of Christ -- while telling us that Christ was wrong, isn't it?
________

¹ Note: Religion in general and God in particular are all about the "supernatural." That is, this by definition is outside of nature, of science. It's like using a voltmeter to measure light intensity. Science is designed to analyze the natural and is not equipped to measure the supernatural. Thus, though there might be touch points between the supernatural and the natural where the supernatural leaves an imprint on the natural, the idea that science can be used to prove or disprove religion is definitionally nonsensical.

We Need Christmas

The songs say, "We need Christmas." Why? For peace and love. For warm feelings. For bringing everyone together. For the lights and the gifts and the decorations. To all of that I say, "Piffle!" But ... not to "We need Christmas." That we do need. Here's why.

We need a God Incarnate (John 1:14) to save us (Luke 19:10). He had to be a human like us, but He had to be deity to save more than one. We need a Savior (Luke 2:11), born of a virgin (Matt 1:23), because Scripture says that sin comes through Adam (Rom 5:12), so we need a Savior who was not fathered by a human male. We need Immanuel - God with us (Matt 1:23). He is, after all, the point of everything, and we desperately need to be connected to Him. We need a sacrifice (Heb 9:26), a Redeemer (Matt 20:28) who will take our place and bring peace, not merely between men, but between sinful man and a holy God -- reconciliation (Rom 5:1-11). We need the humility of the Son of God who became flesh (Php 2:5-8), experienced our trials and temptation -- a High Priest who was tempted as we are yet without sin (Heb 4:15). We need the promises fulfilled and the certainty of the outcome because of it.

We need Christmas. Christmas is a look back at the promises, the hundreds of prophecies of the Messiah, starting from Genesis 3 on into the Advent -- promises fulfilled at Christmas. Christmas is a look forward at the now-certainty that Immanuel is come, that salvation is at hand, that God wins and the future is bright for all who believe. So we give gifts to remember His inexpressible gift (2 Cor 9:15) and we string lights because He is the light of the world (John 8:12). Evergreen trees can remind us of the eternal life that Jesus brings (John 3:16). Christmas represents all of our hope in God and the Christmas celebrations provide a reminder of that hope and our need to celebrate Him, the King of kings, the Lord of lords, born back then in humble estate to live a sinless life, die for our sin, and rise again to new life so we can, too. Oh, yes, we really, really need Christmas. Christmas is a singularity, a completely unique point in all of human history, and marks the beginning of the fruition of God's plan for salvation for all who follow ... and all who came before. We need Christmas. And all that "peace and love" and "warm feelings" and "gathering together" is nice, too.

Immaculate

Christmas is on the horizon, and recently I came across some discussions of the "Immaculate Conception." Not being Catholic, I had to figure out just what that meant because I wasn't sure those who were discussing it actually knew. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is not about the Virgin Birth. That is, it isn't about how Mary got pregnant without sex. It's about Mary herself. The Roman Catholic claim is that Mary herself was sinless ("Immaculate") before, during, and after Jesus. We understand that all have sinned except Jesus, but the Roman Catholics disagree and argue that Mary was another exception. Add to that the concept of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, and you have what the Roman Catholics refer to as a "Co-Redemptrix," a Virgin Mary who participates in the redemption of all people. But I'll let you folks who contend for such a role to squabble among yourselves. Not my problem.

It is true that the Virgin Birth is non-negotiable in Christian teaching. It is stated clearly (Luke 1:26-38 -- especially Luke 1:34-37). It was predicted (Isa 7:14). And it has been the accepted understanding of Scripture since Christ. But when we end up with a perpetual virgin Mary, we end up with a contradiction of Scripture. "Oh, no," the Catholics assure me, "those weren't brothers; they were spiritual brothers." Nice idea, but in John 2:12 John distinguishes between His brothers and His disciples. His disciples were His spiritual brothers, so why are these distinct? In John 7:3 His brothers urged Him to go to Judea so His disciples could see His works. Again, aren't those the same? In Mark 6:3, the people of His hometown opposed Him, saying, "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?" That can make no sense if "spiritual brothers and sisters" were in view. They were clearly talking about physical brothers and sisters in their midst.

Mary was, in a very real sense, the "mother of God." Jesus was God Incarnate; Mary was His mother. But the godhood of Jesus wasn't endowed by Mary; it was God. God is the originator of God (as it were). Mary was "full of grace" (Luke 1:28), but if grace is unmerited favor and Mary was "full of grace" because she was sinless, we have a problem -- grace is not unmerited favor. Even in the early church the first suggestion of Mary as sinless didn't come about until the 4th century ... oddly enough right around the rising of the Roman Catholic Church. From the Roman Catholics, the claim is that the first to teach about the sinlessness of Mary was Pelagius. Hmmm. And if Mary was without sin, why did she refer to God as her "savior" (Luke 1:47)? People without sin need no savior. Further, if Mary was without Original Sin and, therefore, without sin for life, who else is there? How many were/are there? Who says "all have sinned" when there could be a considerable list of those who haven't? In the end, we have to consider, if the Bible is that unclear and that unreliable, what else do we need to question? Jesus was born from a virgin, and His mother experienced great grace. Jesus was the only sinless man to ever live and His sinlessness qualified Him to pay for our sin. Be careful when others try to mediate that away. It is neither a biblical nor reasonable place to go.

Christmas Is All Wrong

In sports they do a postgame analysis. Let's do the same for Christmas. You know Christmas is all wrong, right?

Christmas is the celebration of the Incarnation. Now, that's crazy. The Creator of the world took on flesh -- creation. The God of the universe became creature. He didn't arrive in a palace or have royal parents. He was laid in a feeding trough, born to poor parents. In fact His father wasn't even His father. His first visitors weren't the elite, but the lowly -- shepherds. Sure, angels announced His birth, but not to the world or even the upper echelon. A group of guys in a field with stinky sheep. It seems like every aspect of this story is just plain wrong.

It only gets worse in the long view. All humans will die, but Jesus was born for that purpose. He didn't cling to being in the form of God, but lowered Himself -- what Paul calls "emptied Himself" (Php 2:7) -- to death on a cross, the most shameful death one can imagine. This sinless Son of God would go on to be executed for crimes He did not commit in order to save people who were His enemies. And, perhaps the final indignity, He opted to make these enemies of His whom He died to redeem His Bride, His Church, His voice on earth.

It's wrong ... all wrong. No one else would have planned it that way. And, oh, God did plan it just that way. Christmas is a celebration of the counterintuitive, a Savior who is born as a child, a God who takes on human flesh, a Creator that takes the form of His created, a Lord who becomes a servant ... quietly ... in a small village in an obscure country ... among animals and enemies ... for their benefit. That's the day we just celebrated. Makes no sense ... unless, of course, you're God.

The Kneeling Santa

Years ago my grade school son's teacher (at a Christian school) sent a note home asking me to stop my son from telling the other kids that there was no such thing as Santa Claus. Of course, back then I was amused. Did she really think there was a Santa and he was telling them fibs? Was a Christian teacher in a Christian school opposed to the truth of Christmas? I have grown up since then. Turns out, she was wrong ... but right. Santa is real. The whole elf-who-lives-at-the-North-Pole thing, of course, is nonsense. That version is an act of sedition that changed the true version into a lie. What is the truth about Santa Claus?

Bishop Nicholas of Myra was born in 270 A.D. in what is now Turkey. He was a devout Christian and loved Jesus. At one point he was imprisoned by Diocletian, a Roman emperor, for his faith. He was legendary for his generosity and gave away most of what he had to those in need. His special interest was needy children. One story is told about Nicholas saving three young girls from misery by secretly putting dowry money in stockings they had hung over the fireplace to dry. In 325 he attended the Council of Nicaea where they discussed whether Jesus was God or not (the Arian heresy). Nicholas is reputed to have slapped Arius for his heresy. The Roman Catholic church sainted him and he was known as the patron saint of charity and children. So Saint Nicholas became Sinterklaas in Holland (the Dutch version of Saint Nicholas) and that word migrated to Santa Claus, but St. Nicholas himself never varied from a avid and sincere follower of Christ who imitated Jesus in loving those he encountered, standing always for Christ.

We are often told that Christmas traditions are largely pagan, stolen from pagan sources, and "Christian-ified" (yes, I made that word up). I think the truth is quite different. And I think that the transition of a man who adored Christ and loved his fellow man in response into a jolly old elf is the exact opposite, a theft from Christian history to pervert the truth. St. Nick lived on his knees before the newborn King. I'll stick with the real Saint Nick, thank you.