While I may often either quote or refer to ideas or statements that others have made (and try to give proper credit), most of what I write is based on some original thinking (if there is any such thing). Such is not the case today. Within the last few hours I have come across two pieces (by different authors) that address subjects that I have written on in the last few days and I would like to share those in their entirety with you. This will be an unusually long post but, in my opinion, well worth your time and attention.
This first one is written by Dr. Ravi Zacharias and speaks to the issues of both worship and Christmas. I especially appreciate the cultural context in which he sets his comments:
Dr. Ravi Zacharias
To repress worship is to repress the irrepressible.
Everyone is a worshipper. Every person has his or her God: The only difference is that some can defend what they believe with sound reasons while others do so in a vacuum. Not only individuals but nations have their gods.
I am an Indian, born and raised in India. Before I moved to the West I readily accepted the fact that during Hindu festivals the nation would be celebrating the occasion. This was understood, even though technically India is a secular democracy. But there is an underlying worldview behind the culture. Whether it was Ganesh puja or Diwali, India celebrates its festivals based in a Hindu worldview.
I am not a Hindu but I respect the Hindu’s right to express the foundational ideas of the nation. The same applies to a Buddhist nation or to an Islamic nation. I am neither a Buddhist nor a Muslim. But I respect the right of those in these countries to express their faith during their festivals and am not offended by them.
I am a Christian. When I came to America decades ago, I was thrilled to see Christmas celebrated and the reason for the season so obvious: the birth of Jesus Christ. Did I assume that every American was thus a Christian? Certainly not. But I expected the charitable heart of even the dissenter to allow that which has been practiced in this country historically and traditionally to continue. But alas, it is not so. In Thailand and Indonesia Christmas carols are sung in shopping centers and Christmas trees adorn airports. But in America the anti-Christian bias of silly advertisements like Bloomingdales’ “Merry, Happy, Love, Peace” reflect ideas firmly planted in midair and proclaim no reason for the season.
Who is offended by a public celebration of Christmas? The anti-Christian secularist who lives under the illusion that values are cradled in a vacuum. Peace and love for what? What do these terms really mean? Are they self-evident? Not by any means.
America may not be a Christian nation per se, but only the Judeo-Christian worldview could have framed such a nation’s ideas and values: “All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” No other religion or secular assumption can affirm such a statement except the Judeo-Christian worldview. But today that very worldview on which our systems of government and law are based is expelled from the marketplace.
Democracies that are unhinged from all sacred moorings ultimately sink under the brute weight of conflicting egos. Freedom is destroyed not just by its retraction, but more often by its abuse.
Is it not odd that whenever it has power, liberalism is anything but liberal, both in the area of religion and politics? We now have something called “spirituality” because people don’t like the word “religion.” What does spirituality mean? It means you may believe anything you wish to believe but regarding ultimate things, “No absolutes, please.” The relativism and spirituality with which our society lives have one thing in common: they are both sophisticated ways of self-worship.
It is not accidental that even as Christian values have been jettisoned, the world is economically and morally on the verge of bankruptcy. Oh, but Jesus’ name still surfaces in the West. Maybe more often than any other name. Why? Because profanity still reigns. Oh yes, and God still figures in our philosophy: even when “Mother Earth” quakes and thousands die, we still blame “Father God.” The banishment of Christmas may be the anti-theists’ great longing. But they still want the gifts of Christmas—love, joy, peace and reason. Malcolm Muggeridge once opined that we have educated ourselves into imbecility.
What are we celebrating at Christmas? What is the message of Christmas? It is the birth of the One who promised peace, joy and love. Try as we will, we cannot realize such values without acknowledging the point of reference for these absolutes: the very person of God and his gift to us of a changed heart and will. That message needs to be heard around our world that is reeling with problems and rife with hate. For we have proven we are not fit to be God.
G.K. Chesterton was right: “The problem with Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it has been found difficult and left untried.”
Some years ago, I walked into the Forbidden City in Beijing. It was a cold and grey January. I paused as I saw deep inside its walls a shop with the banner still fluttering, “Merry Christmas.” That which was happily displayed in the Forbidden City is now all but forbidden in our cities. A Chinese professor once remarked to me, “You Christians need to thank God for Communism, because we left the souls of our people empty, making room for the gospel.”
Maybe someday we will thank the rabid secularists as well, when Merry Christmas will no longer be forbidden in our cities. Exhausted and disappointed in self-worship, we may turn to God again and hear his story afresh.
The second piece I want to share is written by Cal Thomas and mainly speaks to the death of Christopher Hitchens while giving a bit of a nod to Christmas. Many of you will enjoy and agree with these ideas while others will not feel quite the same way. I think you will find it provocative either way:
Death of an atheist By Cal Thomas
Perhaps not since Madalyn Murray O’Hair and Carl Sagan has there been such an “evangelical” atheist as Christopher Hitchens, the writer and social commentator who died last week after a long and public battle with esophageal cancer.
Hitchens railed against those who believe in God. While an original writer, and smart, there was nothing original about his unbelief. Such views have been expressed since the dawn of humanity. They have also been answered by some of the wisest people who have ever lived. There is a difference between “smart” and “wise.” As that Scripture in which Hitchens disbelieved says, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.” (Proverbs 9:10)
I have always found atheists to be interesting people because they just may be the world’s smallest minority group, one that gets smaller still as its members pass on and meet God face to face. Still, atheists demand physical proof of God’s existence, as if they could bring God down and make Him into their image. What kind of God would that be? He would be their equal and, thus, not God at all.
Evidence, alone, has never moved anyone from unbelief to faith. If proof were enough, all of the unbelieving contemporaries of Jesus (and Moses) would have believed in God because of the miracles they performed. Two people presented with exactly the same information can respond in opposite ways. Faith is not based solely on facts. It is a gift from a God who exists.
Hitchens wrote a book called “God is Not Great.” It’s a clever title, but how would he have known, since they had not been properly introduced?
C.S. Lewis, once an atheist and thus conversant with the subject, wrote after his conversion, “I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen. Not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.”
Some people exist, however nervously, believing that this life is all there is. The late singer Peggy Lee put the result of such faith this way: “Is that all there is? If that’s all there is to life, then let’s break out the booze and have a ball, if that’s all there is.”
Why contribute to charity, or perform other good deeds? Without a source to inspire charity, such acts are sentimental affectations, devoid of meaning and purpose. If survival of the fittest is the rule, let only the fit survive. That was the sentiment of Ebenezer Scrooge before his visitation by those three spirits and his subsequent transformation. Let the poor and starving die, he said, “…and decrease the surplus population.” Who is to say such a notion is wrong without a standard by which to judge wrong.
To object to God is to create morality from a Gallup Poll. In Gallup We Trust doesn’t have the same authority.
Hitchens was a gifted writer, but who gave him the gift? Why was he not a gifted actor, surgeon or athlete? Why was he not talentless? Was it an evolutionary accident, which would mean his gift and his life were meaningless and merely a “chasing after the wind”? (See Ecclesiastes) Apparently he thought so.
An atheist will tell you he doesn’t need God in order to be good, or perform good works. Maybe not, but the very notion of “good” must have both a definition and a definer. “Only God is good,” said Jesus. (Mark 10:18)
Who is the author of evil? And if God is nonexistent, why do we call it evil? Is one person’s evil another person’s good? Does such a view lead to ethics that must inevitably be situational?
Scripture warns, “The fool has said in his heart ‘there is no God.’” (Psalm 14:1)
In this season when many celebrate the object of their faith, there is no joy in the death of one who had faith that God does not exist. Hitchens now knows the truth and that can only be the worst possible news for him.
As for the atheists still with us, Christmas is a reminder there is still time to believe and receive the ultimate gift.
Like this:
Be the first to like this post.
I first started thinking about this when people started wondering aloud to me as to whether or not we would cancel services on Christmas Day. To be honest, I found that to be a rather outrageous question. Two of major events we celebrate as the church are the Incarnation (Christmas) and the Resurrection (Easter) of Christ. The implication seems to be, especially with Christmas, that the gathering for the purpose of worship might interfere with a celebration of the cultural aspects. The reason for my amazement should be obvious.
and then replace the words at the top with “2.1 billion people in the world know myths when they see them.”
Welcome to the time of year during which we regularly revisit the heartening discussion about “Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, Merry Xmas” and the like. I should point out that while I find the whole “Happy Holidays, Holiday Trees, Winter Pageants, etc.” to be rather irritating, as an issue it is still pretty peripheral. In other words, even though I have my preferences, it is not something that I am going to campaign too stringently for.
Yesterday afternoon I had the opportunity to give a brief Christmas message at a local girls prep academy and I thought I might share that message with you (illustrations and all) for you enjoyment or critique.
For most Christians there is the celebration of two types of Christmas. For me they both began this weekend. The first one is what I refer to as the “cultural Christmas.” By that I am referring to things like Black Friday shopping, putting up the tree, listening to the radio version of Christmas music, watching sappy, predictable Hallmark Christmas movies, drinking eggnog, and the whole Santa Claus enterprise. Even though all of this has very little to do with actual Christmas it is all great fun and harmless I think for the most part as long as it does not obscure what the season is about.
The core character in The Chronicles of Narnia is, of course, Aslan the Lion. The fact that Aslan is Lewis’ representation of Christ in the series is rather obvious–in spite of what Liam Neeson might imagine even as he voices Aslan in the films (you may remember that just prior to the release of “Voyage of the Dawn Treader” the actor indicated Aslan represented any number of religious figures–which I assume means he is overwhelmingly PC or has never read the books). Lewis portrays for us the crucifixion and resurrection (the Stone Table), salvation (undragoning of Eustace), along with vision of the Lamb as we are told of his being known by another name in the “real world.” All climaxing with the entrance into “Aslan’s Country” (heaven). If all of that isn’t enough Lewis himself made that abundantly clear–once when an 11 year old girl from the United States asked Lewis what Aslan’s name in this world was, he wrote:
