BACK TO THE BIBLE FOR AUTHORITY

BACK TO THE

BIBLE FOR AUTHORITY

INTRODUCTION:   “Hold fast the pattern of sound words which you have heard from me, in faith and love which are in Christ Jesus. 14 That good thing which was committed to you, keep by the Holy Spirit who dwells in us”. (II Tim 1:13-14)

NKJV

n  Hold Fast = hang on for dear life

n  Stay within the revealed “pattern”

n  Sound Words = scriptural words or revealed words of God

n  (Unsound words = words that change the message by adding foreign material or that tend to subtract God’s will and replace it with human will, philosophy,  or imagination)

Love for Christ urges upon us the desire to keep His commandments (John 15:10, 14), and wisdom would call upon us to acknowledge Him in all our ways (Prov.3:5, 6). Churches were invaded with false brethren in the first century, and it definitely took a strong commitment of love and loyalty to God to stand against the many “winds of doctrine” that were blowing upon the early church. The false teachers came in secretly (II Pet. 2:1f), often with attractive personalities, and slowly changed attitudes toward truth.

In the same way, “winds of doctrine” have been blowing upon the church in the twentieth and twenty first centuries.  Churches that we would call "liberal" in regard to church support of institutions, recreational facilities, etc., view themselves as "conservative" compared to many churches of Christ which they view as liberal in regard to fellowship with denominations  i.e. the Christian church. Over the years, the drift toward more liberal ideas and activities has been accepted by the younger generations who seem to be ready for even more subtle changes. Many of our young people have no idea how to handle these shifts in attitudes and practices.  Unless they believe deeply that every generation must insist on going "back to the Bible for authority", they, too, will be swept away by unsound thinking.

In all things that humans make or copy, there is a need to follow a pattern.  (Example: cutting out and making a dress; putting together a model airplane). Without a pattern we actually copy nothing and things are invented as we go along. What we would end up with is only something that pleases man.  If God gave a pattern and we ignore it, then we are only pleasing ourselves even as Nadab and Abihu (Lev.10) or as Cain (Gen.4).  But, this is not pleasing to God.

If one wanted to start a McDonald’s restaurant in another city, what pattern would have to be followed?  Could you learn from the Bible how to start a McDonald’s chain? Can one learn from the Bible how to start and operate a Masonic Lodge?  How about a Southern Baptist Church?  How about a Presbyterian Church?  The pattern for these organizations is not found in the Bible.  But, where is the pattern to be found for becoming a Christian?  Where is the pattern for a group of Christians to start a local church of Christ?

It is easily seen that we DO have a pattern for being a “Christian” only, and a pattern for starting and sustaining a local church of Christ, but there is no pattern for any denomination.  We must follow the same pattern given to the first century disciples. . .the Word may as well not been given to them either, for if it does not matter if WE keep it, then it never mattered anyway.  If it ever mattered, and it did, then it still matters and always will matter more than anything else in the world.

In the opinion of some, there was a time when the book of God became “out-of-date” with the times. During that time, the book of God was stored in the back of the temple . . . lost from view, lost from use, and lost from the memories and hearts of the priests and the leaders of the people. Read II Kings 22:8-13.  Read about them finding God’s book. Think about them analyzing. . . what point in time took them down the road so far from the Law of God? Did it happen quickly or was it a slow process? Think about what attitudes must have prevailed for God’s word to have become so distant to the heart of the leaders of the time.  Did God’s people spend less and less time reading it and dwelling upon the promises and righteousness found in God’s law?  Did people get tired of hearing it?  Did people prefer the ear-tickling motivational sermonettes they were hearing at the nearest pagan temple?  What set the stage for people to begin to desire the religious gimmicks of the religions and nations around them? At what point was “the pattern of sound words” found in God’s law no longer popular or even wanted?  Has something similar happened in our own times?  Is our own generation in the midst of just such a spirit of blindness and apathy?

We should think of our Bibles as our most prized possession, because it is the standard measure for truth concerning life, God, and service to Him.  God’s word is the compass that directs us in the way we should go in this life. . . to heaven.  The word of God is like a flashlight in a dark and dangerous world to guide our feet in a safe way.  It should, therefore, be the emphasis of a Christian’s time and interest. . . our daily “walk in life” and assembling with other Christians. . . desiring to hear what God has so lovingly given us.  A church that does not emphasize the Bible and the Bible ONLY is not a true church of Christ.  Demand Bible depth and commitment from the local church or find one that will emphasize it.  It is the ONLY source God has given us, and we had best not neglect it. It will guide us, build us up, and encourage us through the storms and threatening conditions of life.  With God and His word, we are individually “more than conquerors” in this world. Without the support and direction He gives us in His word, we are lost and headed for eternal misery.

I.      IT IS DIFFICULT ENOUGH TO SURVIVE THE WAVES OF HUMANISTIC THOUGHT AS IT IS, THAN TO TRY IT WITHOUT A TRUSTWORTHY COMPASS AND A DEEP RESPECT ANCHORED IN GOD'S WORD.

    

II.     PEOPLE ARE CALLING FOR CHANGE. THEY VIEW THE BIBLE AS “OUT OF DATE”; NOT RELEVANT FOR THE MODERN MAN AND HIS SOCIAL NEEDS.

A.  Yet, God and Jesus are the same as ever.   (Heb.13:8)

B.  SIN is still the reason Jesus came and died for all, and people in the first century did not automatically know and appreciate this either.

C.  A great many of the social ills of society could be resolved if people would believe the gospel and repent. Think of AIDS and Syphilis, abortion, drunkenness, drug abuse, homeless children, etc.  Repentance is the cure for many ills brought on by CHOICE.

D.   Humanism by definition is “a system of thought that rejects religious beliefs and centers on humans and their values, capacities, and worth” (The American Heritage Dictionary) and is a basic concern for the outward, social creature. Churches have turned away from solid preaching to meet the social "needs" of a “me first” society.  From the spiritual, to the carnal and physical, churches have been diverted from their GOD-ASSIGNED mission. The world is calling upon the church to change to meet social and recreational desires.

1.    The Lord is calling upon the church to give Him what He wants.

2.    Which voice will prevail upon our hearts to direct the church in this century?

E. Many brethren have dreamed up ways to accommodate the world's call to the church.

1.    The world is calling upon the church to entertain us and “give us physical advantages”. Many churches are now more willing to answer the world’s call than the Lord’s call.

2.    Today, we are hearing brethren set up a variety of  “ministries” before the world such as: "Kindergarten", "Mother's Day Out", "Gymnastics to the Glory of God",  "The Martial Arts Gospel Ministry", etc.

3.     We are seeing churches move from a spiritual emphasis to a more social emphasis. Jesus' death on the cross for SIN becomes the bad news for those who merely want to come use our gym. Churches become reluctant to tell people the truth because it might drive them away.  So, if we have to get them in by carnal appeals, then we will feel it necessary to KEEP them by carnal appeals as well.

4.    The church should make a distinct call to the world to repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. (Acts 2:38; 17:30, 31). Perhaps it is even time for the church to repent as they were called upon to do in Revelation 2-3.

III.    CHANGES IN CHURCHES OF CHRIST HAVE CREATED A NEED TO FINE‑TUNE THE DESCRIP-TIVE USE OF THE TERMS "LIBERAL" AND "CONSERVATIVE".

There are many different areas in which a person or church may be either “liberal” or “conservative”.  The following areas will help us determine the area of thought or practice in which a certain person or church may be found to be “liberal” or “conservative”.

A. AUTHORITY OF THE BIBLE

1.  The liberal view of the Bible is that it is either: 

a.    subject to error (fallible),

b.    insufficient to guide us completely,

c.     an inspiring document but not the authoritatively inspired revelation of God.                               

2. Notice how loose or liberal this view has to be with such passages as II Tim.3:16-17; II Jno.9; Matt.28:18‑20; II Pet.1:19f

The view that is most conservative with the issue of authority is the view that the Bible is complete, giving us God’s full will, and is authoritative for all issues of faith and practice.

B. APPEAL USED TO DRAW PEOPLE

    

1.    The liberal view is to view the cross of Christ as an insufficient appeal or incentive in reaching out to the lost and drawing him to God.  Entertainment, recreational       facilities and events are used to cover the painful gospel "hook" with a more appealing kind of bait. They will get the hook after they come for the bait.

2.    This view will often study a variety of marketing techniques to out‑do the denominational competitors. This attitude takes a liberal view of such passages as I Cor.1‑3. Follow this line of reasoning:

a.    If the eloquence of a speaker should not be the attraction, and

b.    If nothing should be the attraction but the message of the cross, then,

c.    Entertainment, facilities, music, gymnasiums, etc., should not be allowed to be the basis of appeal to people.  Nothing but the cross, the story of man’s deepest needs addressed in Jesus and Him crucified, should be the appeal of the church of Christ.

         C. WORK OF THE CHURCH

    

1.   The liberal view of the work of the church is that it should include in its scope of work: 1) secular education, 2) recreation, 3) social services such as Kindergarten, Mother’s Day Out, and 4) even medical services.

2.   It takes a liberal view of such passages as (ITim.3:15; 5:16; Eph.4:12; Acts 6:1‑4.)

3.   The conservative view looks at these passages and sees that the main work of the church is to hold up the gospel. The church is the pillar and ground of the truth.

         D.  FINANCING THE WORK

1.   The liberal view is that the church may use rental, car washes, raffles, etc. to raise money for its work. They don’t feel a need to limit themselves to a particular pattern. ( I Cor.16:1‑3; I Cor.9:7‑9) They reason that the Bible doesn't say NOT to do these things.

2.   The conservative view is that the Bible tells how and when to raise funds and the pattern of sound words sets the limits within which to operate.

  E. UNIT OF ACTION

1.   The liberal view is that several congregations may team up in area‑wide, state‑wide, and national projects. Those holding this view think they see authority for it in uniting and giving toward the emergency situations described in the New Testament where several churches sent aid to a church in physical need. Therefore, it is concluded, churches can create a "need" of any kind and appeal to brethren everywhere for financial support. In doing this, the “united” churches take a liberal view of the local church as God's independent unit of action. (Phil.4:14‑18; Acts 20:28; I Pet.5:1f)

2.   The conservative view is that the local church is sufficient as God’s unit of action in evangelism and in benevolence. That sufficiency is always within its own ability until circumstances beyond their control puts them in emergency need of help.

        F. ORGANIZATION

1.   The liberal view is that organization between churches can be had by assigning boards, inter-congregational committees to control and direct certain aspects of church work bigger than a local church can handle. This view was seen in the Christian Missionary Society of the 19th century and later in the various evangelistic and benevolent organizations of the 20th century such as the Herald of Truth broadcast and benevolent institutions like Potter's Home and Childhaven, etc.  These organizations tied several churches into a supportive role for the human institution.

2.   The conservative view is to limit ourselves to the Bible pattern of churches organizing only on a local scale (Phil.1:1), each church working independently, but concurrently at the same kind of work with the same mission.

         G.  MORAL PURITY

1.   The liberal view allows for immoral behavior to go unmarked, unreproved, and tolerated under an umbrella of grace and love.  There is danger in accepting a liberal view of such things as adulterous marriages, because eventually, by the same rationale, homosexuality and many other vices will sooner or later be reasoned under that same umbrella of “grace”, etc. This view deals very loosely with such passages as I Cor.5; 2 Thess.3; Tit.3:10‑11; Rom.16:17f; Matt.5:32; 19:9; etc.

2.   The conservative view is to mourn over sin and seek to encourage repentance as such issues arise among the members.  Teaching on moral issues is to be encouraged, not discouraged.

H. WORSHIP: Designed by God?  Or,  by Man?             (Jno.4:24; I Cor.11, 14)

1.   The liberal view is that what we do in assembly to worship God can be designed by human wisdom and desire. 

2.   The conservative view of scripture is that worship has always been regulated by God from the worship of Cain and Abel (Gen.4) through the Mosaic Tabernacle period (Lev.10) and on into the New Testament.  Therefore, we must conduct our worship in the way that fits the pattern of sound words. Doctrines of men can corrupt and make our worship “in vain”. (Matt15:8-9; Col.2.)

Iv.    TWO SOURCES FOR AUTHORITY

A.  The Bible                                                                                         

1.   The revelation of God’s mind and will (1 Cor.2; Eph.3:1-4)

2.   The COMPLETE guide (Eph.3:1-4; 2 Tim.3:16-17; Jno.16:13)

3.   God’s religion abides within the boundaries of this revelation (II John 9-10).

B.   Human Desire

1.   There is a religion to support every human desire (thus hundreds of different denominations today)

2.   This serves MAN’s interests, but not God’s interests

3.   This creates conflict of interest (supporting and maintaining a human division is a sinful work of the flesh – Gal.5:19f).

WE MUST GET BACK TO THE BIBLE FOR AUTHORITY OR ADMIT THERE IS NO AUTHORITY HIGHER THAN HUMAN DESIRE.

Conclusion:  There is a religion to support every human desire. When everyone does what is right in his own eyes and believes that God accepts that, then SIN becomes pure imagination, and Jesus came and died in vain.  He died because man was "wrong" about something (thus committing “sin”) and we should not deceive ourselves into thinking we are right. (I Jno.1:7‑9) The gospel we preach must be distinguishable from the many fads and fashions of modern denominational gimmickry.  It must be the same pattern of sound words employed by the early Christians or it is not the same gospel. (Gal.1:6‑10)

This lesson demonstrates that churches have lost their sense of direction and need to get back to biblical authority for everything, learning how to properly use the Bible, and how to use it properly in establishing authority for what we do as a local church and the individuals of His greater universal body or church. Has this generation “lost the book”?  Or, will you do all within your power to make sure ours is the generation that will step up to the challenge of holding up the book of God as a light that every man, woman, and child so desperately needs? Will YOU “hold fast the pattern of sound words”?

QUESTIONS:

1.    Is there a better source of authority than the Bible?

2.    Is the Bible out‑dated and irrelevant today?

3.    If the world is dark in its understanding of the purpose of life, how can the         Bible help us?

4.    If Jesus is the light of the world, where can we find out about Jesus?

5.    Have churches of Christ always remained true to the pattern of sound words?

6.    Is it wrong to think or say that a person is “liberal” or “conservative” in their thinking? Explain.

7.    Do you think we need to be more precise in describing the area or areas in which a person or church is liberal or conservative?

8.    If a person is described as "conservative" in certain areas of his thinking and life, does this mean he is right with God in every area of his life?

9.    Can we be pleasing to God if we participate with others in an activity we are not convinced is right?

10.  Do you think it is important how a person looks at Bible authority and how he applies it?

Loving His Church and Loving His Religion – Part 2

Why Loving Jesus Requires Loving His Church and Loving His Religion – Part 2

If you did not see Part 1 of this series, please take the time to read it now, and then you will be ready to understand that this is not a personal attack on the young man, Jefferson Bethke, who published the video “Why I hate Religion, But Love Jesus”, but is a review of some very important counter-points that is designed to help him and all people see what significant errors are spread when words are misused and the Bible has some opposite things to say.  Love demands that we correct people when they spread error, and love demands that we not help people spread error further.  That is the reason I think it is important to look at the poem point by point. People need to understand that there are some very serious and dangerous errors couched within this rap poem.  As someone else said:  “For four minutes, Bethke rhymes his way around all kinds of false dichotomies and outright bad theology.”

I like the way the problem was identified by another in this quote:

When we as Christians decry hypocrisy by making the claim that we aren’t a part of a religion, we’re lying about our identity and are furthering the hypocrisy that fuels our frustration. The sentiment shouldn’t be “not a religion, a relationship”; it should be “not JUST a religion, also a relationship”.

I would qualify that a little further that ours must be a religion OF relationship.  Jesus should be head over all things to the church. He should be our preeminently adored, honored, and loved one Who is the reason for our religion.

We examined the earlier words of the poem down to this point and now pick up with the following statement in the poem:

“Religion preaches grace, but another thing they practice,

 Tend to ridicule Gods people, they did it to John the Baptist,”

Now,  some religious people do preach grace and practice something else, and Bethke might be guilty of the same thing right here.  Is he not “ridiculing” God’s people who sincerely believe that God requires them to be “religious” and practice religion?  Obviously, Bethke continues to misuse the word “religion”.  Religion also preaches grace and practices what grace demands.  You would not learn that from Bethke because he has misappropriated the word “religion” and is using it as if means only something BAD, when the Bible shows that religion is also GOOD.  James 1:27.

Religion is simply the practice of what you believe, whether done with misguided faith or enlightened faith, whether engaged hypocritically or sincerely and truly.  The word “religion” is not a bad word in the Bible and is never spoken of in the manner that Bethke has done in his poem.  So, when he says “religion preaches grace, but another thing they practice”, he is not telling the truth.  Jesus’ religion preaches grace and practices what grace demands.  Many religious people preach grace and live by it.  So, Bethke is misusing the word and thus misleads people by that erroneous usage.  He could have made a good point if he had said “Hypocrites preach grace, but another thing they practice”.  But “religion” is not the same thing as hypocrisy, so Bethke cannot be given a free ride to misuse terms and mislead people.

Hypocritical religion is one thing and “pure religion” (James 1:27) is another.  The word “religion” by itself does not tell us that it is hypocritical or pure.  Bethke  speaks as if “religion” is a sin, religion is a problem, religion is a force that blinds people, etc., which is just not true.   All the while he groups everybody under that word and “speaks evil of” them all like some people spoke evil of John the Baptist. Thus, without thinking through his own statements, Bethke shoots himself in the foot.  He is judging others and doing the same thing.

Bethke is ridiculing a lot of God’s people who have no problem thinking that their religion is what God requires.  Jesus was practicing religion. So, unwittingly Bethke is saying that Jesus’ practice of “religion” means that He preached grace and practiced another thing.  He cannot escape this.  Jesus lived and practiced religion.  Doesn’t Bethke realize that John the Baptist was practicing religion too?  He was baptizing people.  Isn’t that what religion required?  So, religion is not what ridiculed John the Baptist. It was false religion that was ridiculing pure religion. It was hypocritical religion that was ridiculing true religion.  Surely he can see his mistake now, if only he will publically withdraw his erroneous video and put the truth out there instead!

“Cant fix their problems, so they try to mask it,

 Not realizing that’s just like sprayin perfume on a casket

 Because the problem with religion is that it never gets to the core,

 It’s just behavior modification, like a long list of chores.

 Let’s dress up the outside, make things look nice and neat,

 Its funny that’s what they do to mummies, while the corpse rots underneath,”

Now, there is a lot of truth stated here, but we need to be clear that it is not “religion” that “can’t fix their problems”. Religion is about using the benefits and tools Jesus provides us to fix our problems, and it is about daily working on ourselves to be like Him, thus fixing our problems.  Now, religion WITHOUT Jesus is religion that can’t fix their problems, but religion built around Jesus is equipped to fix problems. 

The Pharisees were trying to practice religion WITHOUT Jesus. They were opposed to Jesus, and therefore did not have the provisions of Jesus.  That KIND of religion is like spraying perfume on a casket (Jesus used similar metaphors in Matthew 23 for them).  Keep in mind that Jesus’ pure religion is more than “chores” or “commands”, but it is religion nonetheless.  So, to make a valid point, Bethke needs to correct his terminology.  You can say a certain KIND of religion is just behavior modification and like a long list of chores, but JESUS’ religion is not “just behavior modification” or like a long list of chores.  So, there needs to be a distinction made between “Christ-centered religion” and “self-centered religion” and that distinction needs to be made clear in the poem or song. 

It is also true that not all that claims to be “Christ-centered” actually IS Christ-centered.  But, let me get back to the metaphors Bethke borrows from Jesus in Matthew 23 regarding the hypocritical religion of the scribes and Pharisees.  We should make the observation that Jesus was not even there trying to “destroy religion” but trying to cut out hypocrisy.  When they stood in Moses’ seat (proclaiming the things Moses actually commanded) then Jesus encouraged the people to go ahead and do what they say, even if those teachers said and did not (Matt.23:1-3).  Jesus certainly wasn’t trying to destroy the religion of Moses, just the hypocrisy that characterized many of the religious leaders of the time. 

Their “religion” was not pure because of hypocrisy. But the religion they professed when sitting in Moses’ seat was pure.  So, Jesus encouraged pure religion and sought to destroy hypocrisy.  Bethke tends to equate religion with hypocrisy.  Jesus did not.  He supported the law of Moses and the religion of practicing what Moses commanded, but He rebuked hypocrisy, play acting, or doing things to appear righteous while the heart was far from God.  Jesus and Bethke are not on the same page at all in this matter, and that causes us to know that Bethke does not have the right Jesus (2 Cor.11:3-4) in mind, for he is not representing the right Jesus correctly.

Now, there are some things that need to be said about the “Sunday morning” church attender.  There is a lot of weakness and spiritual emptiness and blindness that comes into the assembly on Sunday morning. They seem to come in to meet their “obligation” to God, and never seem to grow deeper and produce fruit.  They do not come because they love Jesus and want to be of service to Him and others.  They are there because they have always brought God that token of religious habit and they learned just enough to have a sense of obligation to keep that ritual going.  You can preach about knowing Jesus and becoming a servant like Him, but they have hardened their heart and cannot fix their hardened condition.  Their empty, ritualized religion can only be fixed by taking the time and interest to really get to know the real Jesus.  Their religion is not pure religion.  They are merely playing church, and as the Laodiceans, they sicken God and he will “spew them out of His mouth”.  The Bible teaches this without teaching error. The rapper should try making such points without muddying the water with erroneous things distracting from the point.  In fact, get rid of the rap music, hold the Bible open, read from it succinctly, and make the points Jesus made in the manner and with the words Jesus used.

Now I ain’t judging…

Let me change from speaking second person to first person.  Well, honestly, you are.  You have judged incorrectly and used words incorrectly, but, it is not good to then try to sanctimoniously take it all back and act like you have not been judging.  People need to know  that hypocritical judging or unfair judging is all that Jesus forbids.  He does not forbid all judging.  In fact, Jesus tells us to make a lot of judgments.  So, if you are not judging, I don’t know why you bothered setting up the cameras and sound equipment and recording equipment to record this poem and rap to it if you were not judging.  You don’t need to act like you are not judging.  People can see that that is exactly what this video is all about, and they sense a serious logical problem or problem with honesty if you throw out words like “Now I ain’t judging”.  It kind of weakens how seriously you should be taken on other points.

“…I’m just saying be careful of putting on a fake look,

 Because there’s a problem if people only know that you’re a Christian by that little section on your facebook”.

Well, that is a statement with value.  It needs to be said often.  But, that is not “just” what you were saying.  You said so much more than that, and that is why you caused people to take issue.  If this is all you were saying, then I would have been a leading encourager of your words.  Many others would too. In fact, I doubt anyone would have taken issue.  All the people hearing and reading your words should seriously think about whether people can tell if they are a Christian by their manner of life and behavior. It should be clear in our words, dress, known principles, daily behavior, friendships, and works of love and compassion and attendance at church.  It should not be an empty claim on facebook.  Nor, should it be just seen in attendance, but every facet of our lives.

“In every other aspect of life you know that logic’s unworthy”.

I think you mean that the logic of making a claim on facebook and not showing it anywhere else is unworthy logic that does not hold up for us in every other aspect of life.  I agree. You use a good analogy next when you say:

“Its like saying you play for the Lakers just because you bought a jersey”.

The comparison here is good.  Saying in a little section on facebook that you are a Christian is very much like wearing a Laker’s jersey and hoping it will be enough to identify you as a player.  You have to actually play with the Lakers to be a Laker, and you have to actually live like a Christian to be one.  But, that is very good, while it disturbs me that later you seem to make the claim that Jesus “did it for you”. That only religion says “do” and Jesus says “done”.  Why do we have to do anything differently if we are trying to avoid “religion” which, you say,  says “do”?  And, if Jesus says “done” then why should we worry about anything else? That will need some explanation and harmony because it looks like another contradiction in your words. 

Enough for now.  We will visit more things you said in a later installment.  -Terry W. Benton

Why Loving Jesus Requires Loving His Church and His Pure Religion –Part 1

Why Loving Jesus Requires Loving His Church and His Pure Religion –Part 1

 A rap artist video by Jefferson  Bethke has caught the attention of YouTube visitors and spread in amazing and alarming proportions through Facebook and other social media, and has been met both with amazing excitement and disturbance.  Just the title alone would alert and alarm people because it is self-contradicting to those who know what words mean, but those who are just as uninformed about terminology and word meanings and actual Bible teaching would respond with great excitement and enthusiasm. The title of the piece is “Why I hate religion, but love Jesus”.

My immediate response to the title, before going any further with hearing the piece, was that this is going to a very uninformed piece of work.  Had the title been something like “Why I hate false religion, or hypocritical religion, or man-made religion, or empty ritualized religion, etc. but love Jesus, or but love Jesus and His Religion” or something that qualifies the “religion” part of the title, then I would not have thought “how self-contradicting this title is”.  You see, when you love Jesus, that very way of thinking IS your religion.  You cannot say that you love Jesus but have no religion. The very definition of religion will describe the practice of what you believe.  If you love Jesus you will keep His commandments, and that very practice IS your religion.  It is actually absurd to say you love Jesus but hate the practice and life of loving Jesus (which what your religion would be).

 Bethke is expressing his religious beliefs in the video. He tells in the video about his past religion and then about his present religion.  He lived an hypocritical religion earlier, as he describes in the video his porn addiction, drugs, and self-centered walk of life, and then describes himself now as Christ-centered, which is his religion now (even if he does not understand what the meaning of the word “religion” is).   You can have vain, empty, impure religion or you can have a purer Christ-centered religion, but you cannot escape the fact that your values and behavior will always express your religion.  Jesus wants us to practice “pure religion”(James 1:27).

But, after getting past the absurdity of the title, the very first line of the poem is just as empty of understanding biblical truth as the title. The title told me immediately that this man is devoid of Bible understanding, but his first words on the video made my jaw drop.  I was amazed that a man could be so ignorant of God’s word as to make a comment as  “What if I told you, Jesus came to abolish religion?”   Bethke not only exposed his own ignorance of God’s word and what “religion” means, but he brought out such vast support that exposes how deprived of Biblical knowledge the general public really is. Such public support tells us that the vast numbers of emotional supporters are ignorant of word meanings and actual Bible teaching (thus a problem of mass biblical ignorance) or a public who does not care if a rapper abuses and misuses terms and contradicts himself and the Bible as long as it sounds like it is hitting something we don’t like in others and is affirming something we can easily accept.

“What if I told you, Jesus came to abolish religion?”-

My initial response to his opening line “What if I told you, Jesus came to abolish religion?”- was “you don’t know what you are talking about”.  Now, I admit that he has some very good points in the bulk of his video, but I do not like spreading some truth with a mixture of error.  When I put out something, I have to be careful that I have spoken the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.  When you spread error with truth, you have not set people free from ignorance and false ideas.  No matter how good a particular point is, the mixture of falsehood poisons the mind and emotions.

 When I know that Jesus did NOT come to abolish religion, and I see masses of people swallowing the idea that Jesus DID come to “abolish religion”, I become greatly concerned and alarmed.  When I know that Jesus came to establish pure religion (James 1:27), why would I not be concerned that I am causing confusion and misunderstanding when I say “Jesus came to destroy religion”?  Jesus did not come to destroy His own religion. He did not come to destroy God’s religion.  He plainly said that He did not come to destroy the law but to fulfill it (which means he came to fulfill the demands of pure religion before God), and there is no verse of scripture that says “Jesus came to destroy religion”, then I cannot speak what is not true.  It is actually a lie.  Satan is the father of lies (John 8:44f), and I’m sure he is excited about getting this mixture of lies and half-truths spread so quickly and enthusiastically.

Bethke may have meant to say Jesus came to destroy BAD religion, but he never said that.  He surely exposes his ignorance of the word “religion” which actually means “re-connection”.  It is how one reconnects with God.  Well, obviously Jesus did not come to destroy reconnection (religion) with God.  So, he confuses people because he is himself confused, and fails to say what he meant, but leaves some people thinking that Jesus came to destroy religion.  He came to promote and build true religion. 

Now,  there are so many other things that concern me about  the errors in his theology, but immediately we sense that the young man has “zeal without knowledge”.  We certainly admire the zeal, but wish that he had been able to direct that zeal less recklessly by basic knowledge of word definitions and Biblical usage.  Even when trying to expose him to the truth on his Facebook page,  I found him deleting my statements of truth and the statements of others who were not heaping praises upon him.  This is what he did to another brother who tried to post a nice and truth-filled article on his (Bethkes’) site.  So, it is not that we are attacking him.  Even trying to correct him to help him in love is viewed as “attacking” when truth is not really what you want.  I have no desire to attack anyone.  I am not looking at his video as an attack on me, but what it is is the circulation of false and misleading information about JESUS and about what religion is.

I understand that he has expressed some measure of regret and admission that he made some serious mistakes in the video, but if he was truly sorry, he would pull the video and quit welcoming those responses that keep praising him for his work, and he would quit deleting those posts that kindly point out the errors of his video.  He is not showing true signs of repentance at all so far.

What if I told you, Jesus came to establish pure religion? What if I told you  that Bethke  was wrong?  Would you get mad at me for telling the truth, and praise him in spite of the fact that he misrepresented what the real Jesus actually came to do?  Is it cool to misrepresent Jesus in a rap video, or does it carry great responsibility to make sure you represent Jesus correctly when you speak about what He came to do? I believe we should be more zealous to promote and protect the truth about Jesus, than to promote and protect a rap artist that misrepresents Jesus. Don’t you?

What if I told you, getting you to vote republican, really wasn’t his mission?

 I would agree.  Perhaps Bethke has experienced religious people promoting the republican party.  Is it wrong for individual Christians to use their influence to promote a political party? No!  Especially if they think it is in the best interest of the country.  But, I don’t know a single Christian who thinks that the mission of Jesus was to get you to vote republican or democrat.  There are probably more churches that try to promote the democratic party, so this too is more of a disingenuous  jab at something he does not like, rather than an actual problem with “religion” itself.

Because republican doesn’t automatically mean Christian,  And just because you call some people blind, doesn’t automatically give you vision.

This is true, and it is true of Jefferson Bethke as well.  Is he claiming to have vision?  Is he saying what he is saying because he thinks some people are blind?  Well, does that automatically mean that he has real vision?  It is amazing that Bethke later claims that “religion makes you blind”.  Well, he already demonstrated that he himself was already blind to the very meaning of religion.   He is correct that just because he makes the claim that “religion makes you blind” doesn’t really mean he knows what he is talking about. That is merely his own religious belief, though he his blind to what it means.

If religion is so great, why has it started so many wars?

Sin is the cause of wars, not religion per se.  Sin causes false religion and false religion may start wars.  Pure religion never started a carnal war.  Is this another case where Bethke is calling people blind for not seeing that religion has started so many wars, and then revealing that he has no real vision of the true situation regarding wars?  Sin and selfishness has caused wars, but religion is only great if it is “pure religion”.  Believing and obeying Jesus is great religion, but Jesus is about spiritual warfare, not carnal warfare (2 Cor.10:4f). Isn’t it great that Jesus keeps a spiritual war going through his soldiers (Eph.6:10-18), and that the greatest chance for peace is when people surrender to King Jesus? When Jesus reigns within us, we have control over sin and selfishness, which results in peace within and peace toward others.  Islam is a religion and its sinful teachings may start wars, but that is a case of impure religion, not the fact of having religious belief,  that causes people to force their will over people and oppress them.  Atheistic  regimes have succeeded in slaughtering more people (both in terms of sheer numbers and in terms of thoroughness) in the 20th century than in the entire rest of human history combined.  They are practicing their religious beliefs.  It is perverse religion fed by sin and selfishness that starts so many wars.  But, religion can be either pure or perverse with all kinds of variations of levels of misunderstanding and hypocrisy.  So, even here Bethke shows a severe problem with his understanding of what religion is.  He himself is carrying out his religious belief whether he understands that or not. And, since he has caused a lot of negative response, is it not HIS religion that has caused such conflict?  If someone pelted him because they felt that he attacked their religion with his religion, how has he avoided starting that fight?  What I am saying is that we are going to have conflict because truth and error don’t mix. Light and darkness don’t mix.  Satan and God don’t get along.  As long as SIN exists among us, there will be conflicts and wars.  Pure religion is what each individual is to bring before God and our neighbors.  THAT does not start carnal warfare, even though sin may cause people to come in conflict with pure religion.

 Why does it build huge churches, but fails to feed the poor?

The mission of the church is to preach the gospel (1 Tim.3:15; Matt.28:18-20).  Sin causes so much of the problem of hunger and poverty.  Teach people to deal with sin and practice righteousness, and they will learn to feed themselves and help others too.  Nevertheless, individuals must operate in society with compassion for the poor, helping them as they have ability and opportunity (Gal.6:10).  That is precisely why there are so many efforts and organizations that have a social compassionate mission.  It stems from the principles of God and pure religion to some extent.  Building buildings for educating and transforming  souls may not directly feed the poor, but it surely does feed them indirectly through the changed hearts that learn to change by hearing God’s word taught regularly.  As Christians learn to practice “pure religion” in spiritual assemblies with each other, there is the trickle-down effect of having one more compassionate person living in society.  But, even then, on the individual basis, the primary mission will be not to merely give a man a fish, but to teach man to fish. We teach people to “provide for their own”, to labor, and work so that they can help others (Eph.4:28), and then teach them to help themselves and to help others.

 A meeting house for Christians to learn, grow, and teach, may seem to cost a lot, but there is no way to measure the good that trickles out from those meeting places into the neighborhood and society.  It is not good to leave the word of God and serve tables (Acts 6:1-8). The mission of the church is spiritual, holding up the gospel to save souls.  When the church does what it is designed to do, save and transform souls within, the poor will have more temporal opportunities to benefit, and more chances to see how to help themselves as well.  Isn’t this how Bethke carries out his own responsibilities for the poor?  Does he think he should have a primary mission for souls or a primary mission for bodies?

By the way, when people are practicing “pure RELIGION” (James 1:27) is when their eyes and hearts  are open to tending the poor. Isn’t that the opposite of what Bethke says about RELIGION?  Bethke may not realize it but if Jesus hated religion, then He hated religion which moves people to feed the poor.  It is the serious practice of religion that moves people to compassionately help others in unfortunate. situations.  James and Jesus tell us to practice “pure religion” (James 1:27).  Bethke has essentially told people to “hate” religion and never practice it. Bethke tell people that religion “blinds” people. Jesus and James says that pure religion is what opens eyes and hearts to compassionately feel for others and help them.

Tells single moms God doesn’t love them if they’ve ever been divorced

 Yet God in the Old Testament actually calls the religious people whores

I’m amazed at this statement by Bethke.  I have never heard a church tell a single mom that God does not love them if they are divorced.  God calls idolaters whores, but never once told people that it is the fact of RELIGION that makes them vile.  It is the LACK of PURE RELIGION that made people spiritual and physical whores.  Divorce is a sin,  and yes, God hates it (Mal.4),  but God loves all sinners and longs for their repentance and spiritual transformation.  Bethke is certainly wrong to imply that Jesus was a whore because He was a “religious person”, though he does not realize that this is what his words really mean.

 Bethke could be guilty of slander if he cannot produce a clear example of a religion that tells single moms that God doesn’t love them if they’ve ever been divorced.  I wonder what kind of religion made him say that?  The message of the church is that God loves all  sinners, and that love is what makes God long for our repentance and spiritual transformation, but it would wrong for the church to teach that God accepts all sinners without repentance and commitment to God.  Loving a sinner and longing for their repentance is one thing, but accepting the sinner regardless of repentance is a totally different issue. (Acts 17:30-31; 2 Cor.7:7ff; Luke 13:3-5).

 It seems that Bethke is practicing a religion of prejudice pandering to try to gain the hearts of those who would like to go to heaven without having to repent of sin.  That is what the religious whores of the Old Testament were doing as well.  By the way, is Bethke telling religious people that God doesn’t love them if they are religious or have ever been religious?

True Bible teaching will target empty, hypocritical religion, while building true, pure religion. We do not need to spread around a video that is so full of error and misrepresentation of the truth.  The errors of this video get worse as we go deeper into the lyrics and understand what is really being said.  Stay tuned for part 2 of our examination.  We will examine more so that you can see that there is a huge difference between what is said in this video and what is said in the Bible, the word of God.

Terry W. Benton

WHEN WAS JESUS BORN?

WHEN WAS JESUS BORN?

Although brother Ferrell Jenkins shows that it is possible for shepherds to be in the field in December (See http://ferrelljenkins.wordpress.com/2011/12/28/was-jesus-born-in-winter/   ), he does not argue that Jesus WAS born in the winter months, inclusive of December, but that the argument that shepherds would not be out in the fields in December is not a strong and reliable argument against a December birth for Jesus.  Our brother Jenkins says:

I am not saying that Jesus was born in December. Only that the common misunderstanding about Bethlehem winters is based on our lack of knowledge about the local terrain.

Some take that to mean that Jesus could have been born in December, and that the only argument against a December birth has been disproven. Actually,  shepherds in the field is not the only argument that shows December to be the unlikely time for Jesus’ birth.  From Luke’s account of the birth of John the Baptist and of Jesus we learn the following facts:

» Zacharias, a priest, performed his duties during the course of Abijah.

» After he returned home from Jerusalem, Elizabeth conceived.

» Mary conceived in the sixth month of Elizabeth's pregnancy.

» John was born approximately six months before Jesus.

The Course of Abijah

To date Jesus' birth, we need a starting point. Fortunately, Luke supplies one in mentioning "the course of Abijah" (Luke 1:5). Is it possible to know if this course existed then, when it fell during the year, and how long it lasted?

Indeed it is!

I Chronicles 24 lists the courses, divisions or shifts of the priesthood that served in the Temple throughout the year. Verse 1 states, "These are the divisions of the sons of Aaron." Among the sons of Eleazar were sixteen heads of their father's house, while among the sons of Ithamar were eight additional heads of house, making twenty-four courses (verse 4).

These courses of priests were divided by lot to be officials of the sanctuary and of the house of God (verse 5). Beginning on Nisan 1, these courses rotated throughout the year, serving in the Temple for one week apiece. The course of Abijah, the course during which Zacharias was responsible to work, was the eighth shift (verse 10).

Josephus, the first-century Jewish historian—who was, by the way, of the priestly lineage of the course of Jehoiarib, the first course—supplies further information about the priestly courses.

"He [David] divided them also into courses: and when he had separated the priests from them, he found of these priests twenty-four courses, sixteen of the house of Eleazar and eight of that of Ithamar; and he ordained that one course should minister to God [during] eight days, from [noon] Sabbath to [noon on the following] Sabbath. And thus were the courses distributed by lot, in the presence of David, and Zadok and Abiathar the high priest, and of all the rulers: and that course which came up first was written down as the first, and accordingly the second, and so on to the twenty-fourth; and this partition hath remained to this day" (Antiquities of the Jews, 7:14.7).

These courses were strictly followed until the Temple was destroyed in AD 70.

The Talmud describes the details of the rotation of courses, beginning on Nisan 1. With only twenty-four courses, obviously each course was required to work twice a year, leaving three extra weeks. (The Hebrew year normally has fifty-one weeks. Intercalary, or leap, years have an additional four weeks.) The three holy day seasons, Passover, Pentecost and Tabernacles, during which all the courses were required to serve, made up these three extra weeks. Thus, each of the courses worked five weeks out of the year: two in their specific courses and three during the holy day seasons.

This fact forces us to choose the first shift of the course of Abijah as the time when Gabriel visited Zacharias in the Temple. Frederick R. Coulter, in his A Harmony of the Gospels (p. 9), computes it this way:

In the year 5 bc, the first day of the first month, the month of Nisan, according to the Hebrew Calendar, was a Sabbath. According to computer calculation synchronizing the Hebrew Calendar and the stylized Julian Calendar, it was April 8. Projecting forward, the assignments course by course, and week by week, were: Course 1, the first week; Course 2, the second week; all Courses for the Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread, the third week; Course 3, the fourth week; Course 4, the fifth week; Course 5, the sixth week; Course 6, the seventh week; Course 7, the eighth week; Course 8, the ninth week; and all courses [sic] the tenth week, which was the week of Pentecost.

Zacharias of the course of Abijah worked the ninth week in his assigned course and the tenth week in the Pentecost course, and this period ran from Iyar 27 through Sivan 12 (Hebrew calendar) or June 3 through 17 (Julian calendar). He probably returned home immediately after his shifts were completed, and Elizabeth most likely conceived in the following two-week period, June 18 through July 1, 5 BC.

With this information we can calculate Elizabeth's sixth month as December, during which Mary also conceived (Luke 1:26-38). It is probable, because of the circumstances shown in Luke 1, that Mary conceived during the last two weeks of Elizabeth's sixth month. Thus, John was born in the spring of 4 BC, probably between March 18 and 31. By projecting forward another six months to Jesus' birth, the most probable time for His birth occurred between September 16 and 29. It is an interesting sidelight that Tishri 1, the Feast of Trumpets, is one of the two middle days of this time period.

Flocks in the Fields

There is additional proof that Jesus was born in the fall of the year. The census of Quirinius that required Joseph to travel from Galilee to Bethlehem would most probably have taken place after the fall harvest when people were more able to return to their ancestral homes (Luke 2:1-5). Besides, it was customary in Judea to do their tax collecting during this period, as the bulk of a farmer's income came at this time.

Another point is that Joseph and Mary had to find shelter in a barn or some other kind of animal shelter like a cave or grotto because the inns were full (verse 7). This indicates that the pilgrims from around the world had begun to arrive in Jerusalem and surrounding towns. Thus, the fall festival season had already commenced. There would have been no similar influx of pilgrims in December. http://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.sr/CT/ARTB/k/568/When-Was-Jesus-Born.htm

Read more:  http://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.sr/CT/ARTB/k/568/When-Was-Jesus-Born.htm#ixzz1hx7HTl00

The Month and Day:

While the New Testament fails to give us a direct statement regarding when Jesus was born, we do have enough information to establish, within a close proximity, the birthday of John the Baptist. In his Gospel, Luke writes:

In the days of King Herod of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly order of Abijah. His wife was a descendant of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. (Luke 1:5)

The priestly order of Abijah was, according 1 Chronicles 24:7-19, the eighth of twenty-four orders which served in the temple throughout the year. The Hebrew calendar is not like the Western calendar: it begins in March/April with the month of Nisan and is calculated upon the lunar-duration method. The third week of that first month is Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread, when all the priests regardless of their order would serve; this was also true for Pentecost and the Feast of Tabernacles. Apart from these three high holy weeks, the 24 courses would serve in the temple in order from first to the last, each order serving a week at a time. Zechariah was of the eighth order, and this means that, with Passover and Pentecost factored in, Abijah’s first course of service in the Temple would have fallen the week immediately after Pentecost. And, it was most likely during this first tour of duty in 3 B.C. that Zechariah had the following encounter:

Once when he was serving as priest before God and his section [“order”] was on duty, he was chosen by lot, according to the custom of the priesthood, to enter the sanctuary of the Lord and offer incense. Now at the time of the incense offering, the whole assembly of the people was praying outside. Then there appeared to him an angel of the Lord, standing at the right side of the altar of incense. When Zechariah saw him, he was terrified; and fear overwhelmed him. But the angel said to him, “Do not be afraid, Zechariah, for your prayer has been heard. Your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you will name him John. You will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth, for he will be great in the sight of the Lord. He must never drink wine or strong drink; even before his birth he will be filled with the Holy Spirit. He will turn many of the people of Israel to the Lord their God. With the spirit and power of Elijah he will go before him, to turn the hearts of parents to their children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous, to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.” Zechariah said to the angel, “How will I know that this is so? For I am an old man, and my wife is getting on in years.” The angel replied, “I am Gabriel. I stand in the presence of God, and I have been sent to speak to you and to bring you this good news. But now, because you did not believe my words, which will be fulfilled in their time, you will become mute, unable to speak, until the day these things occur.” (Luke 1:8-20)

Based upon what we are told above, this amazing event occurred while Zechariah was serving in the temple during the regular duties of the eighth course of Abijah. While it is just barely possible that this might have occurred during Zechariah’s second annual tour of temple-duty in the eighth course of Abijah, other circumstances make this quite unlikely. In other words, this occurred during Zechariah’s first Abijah tour of duty, which in 3 BC would have occurred the first week of June. After his service, Zechariah would have gone straight home:

When his time of service was ended, he went to his home. After those days his wife Elizabeth conceived, and for five months she remained in seclusion. (Luke 1:23-24)

The wording is quite abrupt but not at all surprising: given the punishment he had suffered for not believing Gabriel’s announcement, Zechariah clearly didn’t waste any time but went immediately home. Given both his age and the fact that his home was in a “Judean town in the hill country,” we can surmise that it must have taken Zechariah at least a day or two to make the journey, but that within the week he would have been home. How much longer after that should we estimate that it took for Elizabeth to conceive? The passage doesn’t say, other than to apply an aramaic idiom which indicates both a short but not abrupt temporal frame; in other words, it was “after those days” in the sense that the conception wasn’t immediate, but neither did months pass. We can assume that a week or two transpired before the conception of John the Baptist and still be well within the intent and wording of the passage. Hence, we’re looking at the last week of June or the first week of July before Elizabeth would have conceived. Assuming a July 1st conception for John the Baptist, we can project the date of Jesus’ conception and birth from what Luke tells us next:

In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a town in Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. (Luke 1:26-27)

The phrase “In the sixth month” means during the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy. Unfortunately, Luke is not more specific as to when in that month Gabriel appeared to Mary, only that it happened during that month. If Elizabeth’s first month had begun by July 1st, then Mary was visited by the Angel Gabriel at some point during the month of December ... probably somewhere between the middle of the month and its end. This would allow time for Mary to proceed directly to Elizabeth’s immediately following her conception, spend “about three months” there, and then depart before John the Baptist was born.

To complete our speculation, if we assume that John the Baptist wasn’t premature, he would have been born at the beginning of April, 2 B.C. -- right around Passover. This is an amazing, but not altogether surprising conjunction, since the Jewish expectation had long been that Elijah would return at Passover! In a typological sense, he did: John the Baptist -- the new Elijah -- would prepare the way for the messiah. Since John the Baptist was conceived 6 months prior to Jesus’ conception, it obviously follows that 6 months after the birth of John the Baptist Jesus was born. It is a simple exercise to count the months:

April

May

June

July

August

September

If we project Jesus’ conception on or about December 24, and if we assume a normal pregnancy of 280 days, Jesus would have been born on or about September 29, 2 B.C.. Of course, this is only an approximate estimation. It is conceivable that John the Baptist could have been conceived and born a week or so earlier than our conjecture, or a week later. Likewise, it is entirely possible that Mary could have received Gabriels annunciation and conceived the Christ child as early as the very first week of Elizabeth’s 6th month, and not half to two-thirds of the way through the month. In this case, Jesus would have been born as early as the first week of September, rather than at the end of the month. Any combination of these factors might be possible, which could push Jesus’ birth as much as a month earlier, or a half-month later, depending upon the variables, but this doesn’t seem likely to me. I believe that the evidence points to a mid-to-late December conception and a late September birth for the Son of God.

Conclusion:

What does it matter if Jesus was born on or about September 29th? In terms of our salvation and matters of eternal life: nothing. Salvation comes by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, not through the keeping of high holy days. However, it is important that we speak the truth, and this includes being truthful regarding what we are doing on December 25th.

We celebrate the birth of Jesus at a time other than its actual anniversary because doing so is convenient to the needs, history, and traditions of the Church. In the 4th century it was convenient because several pagan winter-solstice celebrations greatly appealed to many Christians, and since the Church couldn't stop the party they simply adopted and Christianized it. In our current day it's the religious, cultural, and historic inertia of 1700 years which makes it convenient and appealing to continue celebrating the birth of Jesus on December 25th. Granted, some don't consider historical inertia sufficient cause to continue the tradition, but in terms of practical reality that is precisely the reason the celebration continues even despite the political and cultural challenges which have risen to combat it in recent years. To put this another way, we continue with the tradition because we enjoy doing it. http://www.revneal.org/Writings/jesusbirth.htm

TB: The above writer admits that December is not the time of Jesus’ birth, but he winds up saying that the only reason is it celebrated in December is because “we enjoy doing it” and it is too hard to go against 1700 years of traditional inertia.

See also  http://www.truthortradition.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=467

And  http://biblelight.net/sukkoth.htm

TB:  We can certainly concede the argument that shepherds COULD be in the field at night in any month of the year including December, but there is better evidence available to point us more likely to a September date for Jesus’ birth and NO EVIDENCE that Jesus was born in December .

Evidence shows that though the early church could have selected a date to celebrate the day of Jesus' birth, they did not select such a date and God did not tell them to.  We are happy Jesus was born, but God instructed a memorial of His death, but did not give instructions for a yearly memorial of His birth.  That is where we should leave it.

Terry W. Benton

Let's Keep The Mass in Christmas?

Let's Keep The Mass in Christmas?

I may seem to be a fuddy-dud or a scrooge in saying this, but Christmas is a national holiday that started out under the misguided influences of people who blindly accepted it as a proper time to celebrate the birth of Christ.  Christmas, as a concept,  has evolved and has meant different things to different people. God's people have always tried to tell the truth that this is not the time Jesus was born, and that we should not go along with the lies that others are telling and singing when they say such things as "Christ was born on Christmas morning".  We have tried to honor the Lord's birth at all times of the year, but frankly too much is made of Jesus' birth in an incorrect time of year, and too little is made of His death which provides the salvation of mankind through consistent and persistent faith in Him.  The Lord told us to do something to memorialize His death (1 Cor.11:17f) and even tells us that is it to be done each first day of the week (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor.16:1-2), yet the clear instructions are ignored while inconsistently insisting on a yearly human tradition be observed (and that on the wrong day).  God did not tell us a day to observe a birthday party for Jesus, yet people insist on picking out a poorly chosen date, and acting like God is pleased with what they are doing to erroneously celebrate Jesus' birth.

All the fuss about "keeping Christ in Christmas" is a lot about nothing.  Christmas is not a divinely given command. It is a misguided human tradition.  It makes no sense for Christians to tell people to "keep Christ in Christmas" when we would not equally demand that people "keep the Mass in Christmas".  The religious origins of the term for Christmas goes back to Roman Catholicism. The Roman Catholics adapted a Mass to coincide with an earlier pagan festival.  Thus, the term "Christ-Mass".  Protestants did not want to keep the mass in Christmas (a Catholic usage), so they retained the term "Christmas" while removing the mass as a practice. They wanted to keep the concept of celebrating Jesus' birth, but they dropped the Catholic concept of MASS.  Through the years, the Catholics have wanted to keep the mass in Christmas.  Protestants did not mind the term "Christ-mas" as long as one did not actually observe the "Mass" that Catholics had associated with the day.  Thus, Christmas evolved to mean different things to Catholics and to Protestants. 

The term has evolved further.  As different people found the holiday a fun time of family and color and personal traditions, it has been the tradition of many families who did not associate the time of year called "Christmas" to anything religious, to use the time to celebrate the blessings of family and children.  Trees, and lights, and decorations, and gifts have just been a nice, enjoyable, time of year for the family.  Some associate it to the birth of Christ (without good Biblical reason to do so) and others, realizing it has no Biblical support, do not associate it to the birth of Christ.  Some of these are Christians who see no biblical basis for supporting the error that Jesus was born in December, particularly, December 25.  Others do not mind the term "Christmas", because it has come to mean nothing religious anymore.  Just as the terms "Monday" and "Thursday" have lost their religious association to pagan gods, Christmas is not viewed by many as an inherently religious term.  It has religious origins, just as "Monday" and "Thursday" have religious origins, but the terms have lost religious associations, and the use of the terms themselves do not prove anything about what is believed about those terms.  The term has come to mean different things to different people, some with religious significance and some without it.

Some Protestants are speaking out about how upset they are about the reference to "Christ" in Christmas, being dropped, but they do not want to confess that a MASS is built into the term too.  They simply ignore it, and then adjust to it, and then adopt it with a different connotation to what they choose to think about the day of Dec.25.  If they can keep the term and make it mean to them what they prefer it to mean, then why cannot others adopt the term and say it means fun and family?  The truth is, this is exactly what has happened.  Christ Himself was never associated with Dec.25 as a holy day.  If we should join the cry to keep Christ in Christmas religiously, then consistency demands that we also make an equal plea to get the MASS back in Christmas religiously.

While I do not like the ever increasing efforts to remove references to God, Jesus, or Christ from public displays, and have every American right to confess and profess the name of Jesus where I please, and while I defend the American right to profess God in any way an American feels compelled to profess Him, I am not at all convinced that GOD was ever honored by men adapting His name to a pagan holy day. I'm certain that when people say "Lord haven't we done this in your name" (Matt.7:21f), that the Lord will say it was all "lawlessness" and iniquity, done without His authority at all.  A lot of what men say they are doing in His name, is not done by His authorization at all.  The American way and the Bible way are often polls apart.  Traditional religion and the Bible are often very different.  I don't have an American gripe about people wanting to put Christ in Christmas.  I have a biblical gripe that people don't seem to want Christ much at all in many other days of the year, but they pretend that it is important to God that we tell people Jesus was born on Dec.25.  That is just plain wrong.  Let's put Jesus in our hearts every day of the year.  And if we are going to say anything about a day that matters to God, let's be sure to mention every first day of the WEEK (Act2. 20:7; 1 Cor.16:1,2).  Do you want to put the MASS back in Christmas?  Christ never was in Christmas.  Men invented it according to their own will.  Christ never was in the Mass.  Men invented that too.  Christ belongs in every heart every day of every year.  Let us put Christ where He belongs and deserves to be, right there in your heart and mine.  Only then will He be honored.   Terry W. Benton

Terry W. Benton