Category: Hear From the President

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

In my Weekly Update letter last week, I noted that associations of December 25 with ancient paganism have no relevance to how Christians celebrate the birth of Christ today. To think otherwise would be to fall prey to the genetic fallacy, a faulty line of reasoning also known as the fallacy of origins. Saying that celebrating Christmas on December 25 is wrong because pagans had celebrations that day, is like saying that renting a hall for church services from the Masons or Odd Fellows is wrong because those groups have ceremonies with pagan roots. (Note: renting such facilities might be unwise, but it’s not wrong.)

Claiming that the practice of celebrating Christmas on December 25 is rooted in paganism cannot override the fact that, for well over 1700 years, the worship of the church has irreversibly established the biblical story of Jesus’ birth as the focus of Christian Christmas celebrations. It’s superstitious to think that if pagans did certain things in the distant past, then Christians, merely because of that association, must avoid those things today. Pagans performed animal sacrifices, lit candles and had harvest festivals long before ancient Israel included similar practices in their temple worship. Were they wrong in doing so? Pagans breathe oxygen, must Christians avoid doing that? How far does such silly thinking go?

In deciding to celebrate Jesus’ birth on December 25, was the early church cozying up to paganism? The article below, reproduced with permission from the December 2003 issue of Touchstone Magazine, provides some interesting historical perspective. I think you’ll find it interesting.

Advent-Christmas blessings to you all,
Joseph Tkach

---

Calculating Christmas, The Story Behind December 25

by William J. Tighe [1]

Many Christians think that Christians celebrate Christ’s birth on December 25th because the church fathers appropriated the date of a pagan festival. Almost no one minds, except for a few groups on the fringes of American Evangelicalism, who seem to think that this makes Christmas itself a pagan festival. But it is perhaps interesting to know that the choice of December 25th is the result of attempts among the earliest Christians to figure out the date of Jesus’ birth based on calendrical calculations that had nothing to do with pagan festivals. Rather, the pagan festival of the “Birth of the Unconquered Sun” instituted by the Roman Emperor Aurelian on 25 December 274, was almost certainly an attempt to create a pagan alternative to a date that was already of some significance to Roman Christians. Thus the “pagan origins of Christmas” is a myth without historical substance.

A Mistake

The idea that the date was taken from the pagans goes back to two scholars from the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. Paul Ernst Jablonski, a German Protestant, wished to show that the celebration of Christ’s birth on December 25th was one of the many “paganizations” of Christianity that the Church of the fourth century embraced, as one of many “degenerations” that transformed pure apostolic Christianity into Catholicism. Dom Jean Hardouin, a Benedictine monk, tried to show that the Catholic Church adopted pagan festivals for Christian purposes without paganizing the gospel.

In the Julian calendar, created in 45 B.C. under Julius Caesar, the winter solstice fell on December 25th, and it therefore seemed obvious to Jablonski and Hardouin that the day must have had a pagan significance before it had a Christian one. But in fact, the date had no religious significance in the Roman pagan festal calendar before Aurelian’s time, nor did the cult of the sun play a prominent role in Rome before him.

There were two temples of the sun in Rome, one of which (maintained by the clan into which Aurelian was born or adopted) celebrated its dedication festival on August 9th, the other of which celebrated its dedication festival on August 28th. But both of these cults fell into neglect in the second century, when eastern cults of the sun, such as Mithraism, began to win a following in Rome. And in any case, none of these cults, old or new, had festivals associated with solstices or equinoxes.

As things actually happened, Aurelian, who ruled from 270 until his assassination in 275, was hostile to Christianity and appears to have promoted the establishment of the festival of the “Birth of the Unconquered Sun” as a device to unify the various pagan cults of the Roman Empire around a commemoration of the annual “rebirth” of the sun. He led an empire that appeared to be collapsing in the face of internal unrest, rebellions in the provinces, economic decay, and repeated attacks from German tribes to the north and the Persian Empire to the east.

In creating the new feast, he intended the beginning of the lengthening of the daylight, and the arresting of the lengthening of darkness, on December 25th to be a symbol of the hoped-for “rebirth,” or perpetual rejuvenation, of the Roman Empire, resulting from the maintenance of the worship of the gods whose tutelage (the Romans thought) had brought Rome to greatness and world-rule. If it co-opted the Christian celebration, so much the better.

A By-Product

It is true that the first evidence of Christians celebrating December 25th as the date of the Lord’s nativity comes from Rome some years after Aurelian, in A.D. 336, but there is evidence from both the Greek East and the Latin West that Christians attempted to figure out the date of Christ’s birth long before they began to celebrate it liturgically, even in the second and third centuries. The evidence indicates, in fact, that the attribution of the date of December 25th was a by-product of attempts to determine when to celebrate his death and resurrection.

How did this happen? There is a seeming contradiction between the date of the Lord’s death as given in the synoptic Gospels and in John’s Gospel. The synoptics would appear to place it on Passover Day (after the Lord had celebrated the Passover Meal on the preceding evening), and John on the Eve of Passover, just when the Passover lambs were being slaughtered in the Jerusalem Temple for the feast that was to ensue after sunset on that day.

Solving this problem involves answering the question of whether the Lord’s Last Supper was a Passover Meal, or a meal celebrated a day earlier, which we cannot enter into here. Suffice it to say that the early Church followed John rather than the synoptics, and thus believed that Christ’s death would have taken place on 14 Nisan, according to the Jewish lunar calendar. (Modern scholars agree, by the way, that the death of Christ could have taken place only in A.D. 30 or 33, as those two are the only years of that time when the eve of Passover could have fallen on a Friday, the possibilities being either 7 April 30 or 3 April 33.)

However, as the early Church was forcibly separated from Judaism, it entered into a world with different calendars, and had to devise its own time to celebrate the Lord’s Passion, not least so as to be independent of the rabbinic calculations of the date of Passover. Also, since the Jewish calendar was a lunar calendar consisting of twelve months of thirty days each, every few years a thirteenth month had to be added by a decree of the Sanhedrin to keep the calendar in synchronization with the equinoxes and solstices, as well as to prevent the seasons from “straying” into inappropriate months.

Apart from the difficulty Christians would have had in following—or perhaps even being accurately informed about—the dating of Passover in any given year, to follow a lunar calendar of their own devising would have set them at odds with both Jews and pagans, and very likely embroiled them in endless disputes among themselves. (The second century saw severe disputes about whether Pascha had always to fall on a Sunday or on whatever weekday followed two days after 14 Artemision/Nisan, but to have followed a lunar calendar would have made such problems much worse.)

These difficulties played out in different ways among the Greek Christians in the eastern part of the empire and the Latin Christians in the western part of it. Greek Christians seem to have wanted to find a date equivalent to 14 Nisan in their own solar calendar, and since Nisan was the month in which the spring equinox occurred, they chose the 14th day of Artemision, the month in which the spring equinox invariably fell in their own calendar. Around A.D. 300, the Greek calendar was superseded by the Roman calendar, and since the dates of the beginnings and endings of the months in these two systems did not coincide, 14 Artemision became April 6th.

In contrast, second-century Latin Christians in Rome and North Africa appear to have desired to establish the historical date on which the Lord Jesus died. By the time of Tertullian they had concluded that he died on Friday, 25 March 29. (As an aside, I will note that this is impossible: 25 March 29 was not a Friday, and Passover Eve in A.D. 29 did not fall on a Friday and was not on March 25th, or in March at all.)

Integral Age

So in the East we have April 6th, in the West, March 25th. At this point, we have to introduce a belief that seems to have been widespread in Judaism at the time of Christ, but which, as it is nowhere taught in the Bible, has completely fallen from the awareness of Christians. The idea is that of the “integral age” of the great Jewish prophets: the idea that the prophets of Israel died on the same dates as their birth or conception.

This notion is a key factor in understanding how some early Christians came to believe that December 25th is the date of Christ’s birth. The early Christians applied this idea to Jesus, so that March 25th and April 6th were not only the supposed dates of Christ’s death, but of his conception or birth as well. There is some fleeting evidence that at least some first- and second-century Christians thought of March 25th or April 6th as the date of Christ’s birth, but rather quickly the assignment of March 25th as the date of Christ’s conception prevailed.

It is to this day, commemorated almost universally among Christians as the Feast of the Annunciation, when the Archangel Gabriel brought the good tidings of a savior to the Virgin Mary, upon whose acquiescence the Eternal Word of God (“Light of Light, True God of True God, begotten of the Father before all ages”) forthwith became incarnate in her womb. What is the length of pregnancy? Nine months. Add nine months to March 25th and you get December 25th; add it to April 6th and you get January 6th. December 25th is Christmas, and January 6th is Epiphany.

Christmas (December 25th) is a feast of Western Christian origin. In Constantinople it appears to have been introduced in 379 or 380. From a sermon of St. John Chrysostom, at the time a renowned ascetic and preacher in his native Antioch, it appears that the feast was first celebrated there on 25 December 386. From these centers it spread throughout the Christian East, being adopted in Alexandria around 432 and in Jerusalem a century or more later. The Armenians, alone among ancient Christian churches, have never adopted it, and to this day celebrate Christ’s birth, manifestation to the magi, and baptism on January 6th.

Western churches, in turn, gradually adopted the January 6th Epiphany feast from the East, Rome doing so sometime between 366 and 394. But in the West, the feast was generally presented as the commemoration of the visit of the magi to the infant Christ, and as such, it was an important feast, but not one of the most important ones—a striking contrast to its position in the East, where it remains the second most important festival of the church year, second only to Pascha (Easter).

In the East, Epiphany far outstrips Christmas. The reason is that the feast celebrates Christ’s baptism in the Jordan and the occasion on which the Voice of the Father and the Descent of the Spirit both manifested for the first time to mortal men the divinity of the Incarnate Christ and the Trinity of the Persons in the One Godhead.

A Christian Feast

Thus, December 25th as the date of the Christ’s birth appears to owe nothing whatsoever to pagan influences upon the practice of the Church during or after Constantine’s time. It is wholly unlikely to have been the actual date of Christ’s birth, but it arose entirely from the efforts of early Latin Christians to determine the historical date of Christ’s death.

And the pagan feast which the Emperor Aurelian instituted on that date in the year 274 was not only an effort to use the winter solstice to make a political statement, but also almost certainly an attempt to give a pagan significance to a date already of importance to Roman Christians. The Christians, in turn, could at a later date re-appropriate the pagan “Birth of the Unconquered Sun” to refer, on the occasion of the birth of Christ, to the rising of the “Sun of Salvation” or the “Sun of Justice.”

Note: the author refers interested readers to Thomas J. Talley’s The Origins of the Liturgical Year.

[1] William J. Tighe is Associate Professor of History at Muhlenberg College in Allentown, Pennsylvania, and a faculty advisor to the Catholic Campus Ministry. He is a Member of St. Josaphat Ukrainian Catholic Church in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. He is a contributing editor for Touchstone.

---

This article is the second of three on the topic of Christmas. For part one, click here. For part three, click here. For a compliation of all three into one article, click here. For an essay that makes similar points, click here. For related chronological charts, click here.

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

While eating lunch with a pastor friend of mine (from another church), we discussed his reasons for believing Christ’s birth should be celebrated in September, not December: 1) Jesus was more likely to have been born on one of Israel’s autumn festivals than at the end of the year, and 2) Christmas is a pagan holiday. We discussed both assertions at length, and though he agreed that the word “Christmas” is not of pagan origin (it’s from a Latin expression meaning “Christ is sent”), he would not budge from his position, which was based on his use of an argument known as “the fallacy of origins” (or “the genetic fallacy”) in which a perceived defect in the origin of an idea or thing is taken to be evidence that discredits that idea or thing itself. According to this faulty line of reasoning, the truth of an idea or thing is rejected based on its source rather than on its merit. Here are two examples:

• Wedding rings were invented by pagans, therefore wearing a wedding ring is unChristian.
• The word “cereal” comes from the name of the pagan goddess Ceres, therefore Christians should not eat cereal.

Those not realizing the fallacy of such reasoning risk falling prey to the myths and misinformation that often surface when the origin of Christmas is raised. Even if the day is somehow incidentally related to less-than-Christian practices of the past, that association does not determine the meaning Christians (in the early church and today) attribute to Christmas. It’s enough to know that Christ was born on a day in history, in flesh and blood, space and time, for us and our salvation so that we might be born from above by God’s Word and Spirit. By assigning December 25 on the church calendar to celebrating Jesus’ birth, we as Christians are able to celebrate together, and then invite others to join in.

The meaning Christians attribute to Christmas comes from our services of worship on that day, which include readings of relevant Scripture, the preaching of messages expounding those readings, and the singing of hymns and carols that proclaim the joyous, biblical message of Christ’s birth. For us, the meaning of Christmas is determined by the object to which our celebrations point: Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Son of God.

Is Christmas rooted in paganism? Historians (and others) have long debated that question. In the History Today article [1] reproduced below, British journalist Matt Salusbury debunks some of the claims frequently made in that debate, and we’ve linked similar articles in the second footnote [2] to shed light on the debate which often is filled with misinformation and outright superstition. But the bottom line is this: incidental associations of Christmas with non-Christian practices do not determine the meaning of the day for Christians. Jesus Christ gives Christmas its meaning.

---

---

Did the first Christian Roman emperor appropriate the pagan festival of Saturnalia to celebrate the birth of Christ? Matt Salusbury weighs the evidence.

It was a public holiday celebrated around December 25th in the family home. A time for feasting, goodwill, generosity to the poor, the exchange of gifts and the decoration of trees. But it wasn’t Christmas. This was Saturnalia, the pagan Roman winter solstice festival. But was Christmas, Western Christianity’s most popular festival, derived from the pagan Saturnalia?

The first-century AD poet Gaius Valerius Catullus described Saturnalia as ‘the best of times’: dress codes were relaxed, small gifts such as dolls, candles and caged birds were exchanged.

Saturnalia saw the inversion of social roles. The wealthy were expected to pay the month’s rent for those who couldn’t afford it, masters and slaves to swap clothes. Family households threw dice to determine who would become the temporary Saturnalian monarch. The poet Lucian of Samosata (AD 120-180) has the god Cronos (Saturn) say in his poem, Saturnalia:

‘During my week the serious is barred: no business allowed. Drinking and being drunk, noise and games of dice, appointing of kings and feasting of slaves, singing naked, clapping … an occasional ducking of corked faces in icy water – such are the functions over which I preside.’

Saturnalia originated as a farmer’s festival to mark the end of the autumn planting season in honour of Saturn (satus means sowing). Numerous archaeological sites from the Roman coastal province of Constantine, now in Algeria, demonstrate that the cult of Saturn survived there until the early third century AD.

Saturnalia grew in duration and moved to progressively later dates under the Roman period. During the reign of the Emperor Augustus (63 BC-AD 14), it was a two-day affair starting on December 17th. By the time Lucian described the festivities, it was a seven-day event. Changes to the Roman calendar moved the climax of Saturnalia to December 25th, around the time of the date of the winter solstice.

From as early as 217 BC there were public Saturnalia banquets. The Roman state cancelled executions and refrained from declaring war during the festival. Pagan Roman authorities tried to curtail Saturnalia; Emperor Caligula (AD 12-41) sought to restrict it to five days, with little success.

Emperor Domitian (AD 51-96) may have changed Saturnalia’s date to December 25th in an attempt to assert his authority. He curbed Saturnalia’s subversive tendencies by marking it with public events under his control. The poet Statius (AD 45- 95), in his poem Silvae, describes the lavish banquet and entertainments Domitian presided over, including games which opened with sweets, fruit and nuts showered on the crowd and featuring flights of flamingos released over Rome. Shows with fighting dwarves and female gladiators were illuminated, for the first time, into the night.

The conversion of Emperor Constantine to Christianity in AD 312 ended Roman persecution of Christians and began imperial patronage of the Christian churches. But Christianity did not become the Roman Empire’s official religion overnight. Dr David Gwynn, lecturer in ancient and late antique history at Royal Holloway, University of London, says that, alongside Christian and other pagan festivals, ‘the Saturnalia continued to be celebrated in the century afterward’.

The poet Ambrosius Theodosius Macrobius wrote about another Saturnalia, describing a banquet of pagan literary celebrities in Rome during the festival. Classicists date the work to between AD 383 and 430, so it describes a Saturnalia alive and well under Christian emperors. The Christian calendar of Polemius Silvus, written around AD 449, mentions Saturnalia, recording that ‘it used to honour the god Saturn’. This suggests it had by then become just another popular carnival.

Christmas apparently started – like Saturnalia – in Rome, and spread to the eastern Mediterranean. The earliest known reference to it commemorating the birth of Christ on December 25th is in the Roman Philocalian calendar of AD 354. Provincial schisms soon resulted in different Christian calendars. The Orthodox Church in the Eastern (Byzantine) half of the Roman Empire fixed the date of Christmas at January 6th, commemorating simultaneously Christ’s birth, baptism and first miracle.

Saturnalia has a rival contender as the forerunner of Christmas: the festival of dies natalis solis invicti, ‘birthday of the unconquered sun’. The Philocalian calendar also states that December 25th was a Roman civil holiday honouring the cult of sol invicta. With its origins in Syria and the monotheistic cult of Mithras, sol invicta certainly has similarities to the worship of Jesus. The cult was introduced into the empire in AD 274 by Emperor Aurelian (214-275), who effectively made it a state religion, putting its emblem on Roman coins.

Sol invicta succeeded because of its ability to assimilate aspects of Jupiter and other deities into its figure of the Sun King, reflecting the absolute power of ‘divine’emperors. But despite efforts by later pagan emperors to control Saturnalia and absorb the festival into the official cult, the sol invicta ended up looking very much like the old Saturnalia. Constantine, the first Christian emperor, was brought up in the sol invicta cult, in what was by then already a predominantly monotheist empire: ‘It is therefore possible,’ says Dr Gwynn, ‘that Christmas was intended to replace this festival rather than Saturnalia.’

Gwynn concludes: ‘The majority of modern scholars would be reluctant to accept any close connection between the Saturnalia and the emergence of the Christian Christmas.’

Devout Christians will be reassured to learn that the date of Christmas may derive from concepts in Judaism that link the time of the deaths of prophets being linked to their conception or birth. From this, early ecclesiastical number-crunchers extrapolated that the nine months of Mary’s pregnancy following the Annunciation on March 25th would produce a December 25th date for the birth of Christ.

—Matt Salusbury

---

---

I praise God for leading GCI out of faulty reasoning, errors of fact, and various misinterpretations concerning the celebration of Christ’s birth at Christmas. We join with the host of Christians down the centuries in celebrating Jesus’ birth on the traditional day, knowing that the incarnation of the Son of God is central to God’s plan to save humankind. Regardless of the actual day of the birth of Immanuel (God with us), his birth is more than worthy of our celebration. As Jesus’ followers, we celebrate together, rejoicing in the amazing, sacrificial love of our Triune God seen in the birth of Jesus Christ over 2,000 years ago in Bethlehem.

Celebrating Jesus and his birth,
Joseph Tkach

________________

[1] This History Today article was first published in December 2009 (volume 59, 12). It is reproduced here with the publisher’s permission with History Today retaining the copyright. To read the article online, click here.

[2] This is the first letter in a series about Christmas—its origin, dating, and contemporary Christian celebration. To read the other letters, click here and here (and for a compilation of all three merged into one article, click here). For other articles debunking claims concerning the pagan origin for Christmas celebrations, click here, here and here.

Dear fellow worshippers,

I recently saw an anonymous blog post titled, The Church Service of the Future. I think you’ll enjoy this slightly modified version:

Pastor: “Praise the Lord!”

Congregation: “Hallelujah!”

Pastor: “Please turn in your tablet, iPod, iPad, cell phone, PC or Kindle to 1 Corinthians 13:13, then switch on your Bluetooth to download today’s sermon notes. You can also logon our church Wi-fi using the password, ILOVEGCI777.”

[P-a-u-s-e]

“Now, let’s pray, committing this week to God. Please open your Apps, BBM, Twitter and Facebook and let’s chat with God…”

[S-i-l-e-n-c-e]

“And now as we give our tithes and offerings, please have your credit or debit card ready. Those preferring electronic funds transfer, go to one of the laptops at the rear of the sanctuary, or use your iPad or iPod. Those preferring telephone banking use your cell phone to transfer contributions to our church account.”

[As the ushers circulate, mobile card swipe machines in hand, the holy atmosphere becomes electrified as cell phones, iPods, iPads, PCs and laptops beep and flicker.]

[Then at the end of the service comes the final blessing and closing announcements:]

“This week’s ministry cell meetings will be held on the various Facebook group pages where the usual group chatting takes place. Logon and don’t miss out! Thursday’s Bible study will be held live on Skype at 1900 hours GMT. Don’t miss out! This weekend you can follow me on Twitter for pastoral counseling and prayer. May God bless you—have a wonderful week.”

While I enjoy the use of technology to enhance church services (and I’ve been known to use my phone to look up a Scripture from time to time), I think you’ll agree that technology cannot replace worship: It can’t replace prayer, it can’t replace study groups or small groups, and most importantly, it can’t replace fellowship and the sharing of the story that gives shape to and explains why we worship.

A story of real relationship

Authentic and true worship is about a story of real relationship that affects all humanity. That story tells how the world became dysfunctional due to the sin of its inhabitants who developed a storyline other than the one their Creator intended. It tells how humanity rejected God, seeking its own way, leading to lawlessness, jealousy and hate. But it’s also the story of God and his gift of redemption, forgiveness, adoption and love. Were we to focus only on humanity’s side of the story, we’d have no cause for worship. But God has written already the end of the story, and continues working to bring it about. The story tells us that our Creator became our Redeemer and that our Redeemer is Jesus—the truth who sets us free (John 14:6; 8:36). By, through and in him we worship God in gratitude for the fact that we are included in God’s story—a story that tells us how God got involved in the chaos of humanity’s mess and redeemed and restored us so we might fulfill his purpose for all creation (humanity included).

Created for worship

Human beings were created to worship their Creator and Redeemer with all they are and all they have. For humans, the ultimate fulfillment in life is being in right relationship with God. We see that fulfillment in the Person and work of Jesus who not only shows us who God is as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but show us who we are as humans in right relationship with God. Jesus shows us that we were created to love God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength, and to love our neighbors as we ourselves are loved by God. In Jesus, we hear and see this purpose lived out to perfection. He alone perfectly fulfills the two great commandments that sum up all of God’s will and ways. And by the provision of his grace, accomplished in his cross, resurrection and ascension, Jesus has included us in his circle of perfect relationship and, by the Spirit, calls us to participate in his ongoing worship of God and his love for all people.

Embrace the true narrative, reject the false

Various religions have devised narratives to describe their particular conception of God and his relationship to the world. Some of these conceptions are noted in the chart below. We believe that the most accurate understanding of who God is and how he is related to the world is found in Scripture and in the creeds of the early Christian church—a narrative identified below as Trinitarianism (under Monotheism).

One of the other narratives is Panentheism (under Polytheism). It’s gaining popularity in North American and Western culture, with some offering a “Christianized” version (Christo-panentheism) in which the God-world relationship is seen as a unity of being between the triune God and creation. Although those who teach this story acknowledge that there is more to God, creation is held to be naturally divine and naturally in right relationship with God—a relationship that is built-in, behind-the-scenes, on auto-pilot. This relationship requires no costly personal intervention by God to put things right. The “unity” and “love” in this narrative is impersonal, requiring no repentance or transformation, and no worship. It’s a very different story than the Christian gospel of Jesus Christ. Nevertheless, Christo-panentheism’s easy and automatic nature makes it attractive to some Christians. In this issue we’ve included an essay that I asked Dr. Gary Deddo to write to spell out for us the key elements of Christo-panentheism, showing how it diverges from the biblical narrative revealed in Jesus Christ. I encourage you to read it carefully.

The heart of worship

The story of our Triune God (which includes creation, incarnation, crucifixion, resurrection and re-creation) shows forth the glory of God and the true nature of our ongoing relationship with God. The dynamics of the relationship between the Triune God and his creatures, through Christ, and by the Spirit, is the heart of worship that is authentic and true. This worship not only involves praising God for including us in his story—it also has to do with participation in that story in our individual lives and in the life of the church. This worship occurs in churches where the truth about what God has done and is now doing is lived out in his people.

Appreciating worship that is authentic and true,
Joseph Tkach

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

An undergraduate speech class professor of mine taught that there are three aspects of a speech: 1) what is said; 2) how it is said; and 3) who says it. I sometimes reflect on this insight when preparing sermons—focusing particularly on how these aspects of a speech relate to the Bible where what is said, in both the Old and New Testaments, is the message of salvation in Christ; where how it is said has largely to do with the Spirit inspiring the retelling of Israel’s story, which includes Christ; and where who says it is the living Word of God, Jesus Christ—God’s ultimate act of speech.

The author of Hebrews refers to Jesus Christ (God’s “Son”), as “the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature” (Hebrews 1:3 ESV)—or as the NIV has it, “the exact representation of his being.” Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son of God, is the ultimate, definitive speech of God. He is the life, the way and the truth of God personified in order to communicate with us. We rightly, therefore, refer to Jesus as the living Word of God, knowing that he transcends the written word (Scripture) because the totality of God cannot be reduced to a text. Jesus’ life exudes the character of God and embodies God’s kingdom rule. As the Word made flesh, he interprets for us what it looks like to live in relationship with God in anticipation of the coming fullness of the kingdom.

The declaration that Jesus is “the exact imprint” of God’s “nature” should create new connections in our minds in telling us the truth that God is like Jesus. To express this truth, the apostle John calls Jesus the Word (Logos/Logic) of God. Centuries later, in The Trinity, Augustine explained the triune relationship of love that God is using this analogy: If Jesus is the Word, then there must be speech (the Spirit), and a speaker (the Father). Augustine’s analogy expresses both the three-ness of the divine Persons and the one-ness of God’s being as Trinity. Though all analogies ultimately fall short, this one helpfully conveys the wonderful truth concerning God’s nature, and his revelation to us in and through Jesus, by the Spirit. I enjoy the way Gary Deddo put it at one of our conferences:

Jesus was the self-revelation of God, and the self-giving of God. He was the embodiment of God’s love for the world. Everything else then shifted around that new and living Center, and a renewed grasp of who God was. He was identical to Jesus Christ. There was no other God, no God behind Jesus Christ, no Old Testament God in contrast to Jesus Christ. God is like Jesus, all the way down.

Think back to the prophetic promise given to Abram in Genesis 12: “I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing… and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed” (Genesis 12:2-3 ESV). As Scripture goes on to make clear, Jesus, the Seed of Abraham, is the ultimate fulfillment of this promise. In the book of Acts we read this about Jesus: “There is salvation [ultimate blessing] in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12 ESV). God gave us the written word of God (Holy Scripture) to point us to our Savior, Jesus Christ, the Living Word of God. The Bible is the only ancient book that can be read with the author still present with us, and Jesus, through the Spirit, uses the written word to tell us about himself, and also about his bride, the church.

To help us better understand the nature of the church and its ministry, Gary Deddo has written a lengthy essay that addresses the related topics of ecclesiology and missiology. You’ll find the introduction and part one of his essay in this issue (click here). Additional parts will be posted once a month, leading up to our Denominational Conference in Orlando, Florida, in August 2017. I believe you will enjoy reading how Jesus is the foundation of the church, and about the nature and purpose of the church that Jesus continues to build.

I wish you all a blessed Advent as we rejoice in the coming of Christ into the world for our salvation.

Loving the Living Word,
Joseph Tkach

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

On November 24, most of us in the U.S. will be celebrating Thanksgiving Day (other nations have similar celebrations at various times of the year). Reflecting on this annual holiday, comedian Phyllis Diller joked, “My cooking is so bad my kids thought the purpose of Thanksgiving was to commemorate Pearl Harbor!” While her humor always makes me laugh, I’m glad the Thanksgiving meals we’ll soon be enjoying will be gourmet affairs, not catastrophes.

Thanksgiving helps us remember what we’re thankful for (both great and small), then extend that gratitude to God and others. Perhaps, like me, you find yourself thankful for more things each year. The more we understand who Jesus is and who we are in him, and the more we appreciate the relationships he gives us in union with himself, the more we will be inclined to practice what the famous British Baptist preacher Charles Spurgeon refers to in the following quote as thanks-living:

I think there is a better thing than thanksgiving: thanks-living. How is this to be done? By a general cheerfulness of manner, by an obedience to the command of Him by whose mercy we live, by a perpetual, constant delighting of ourselves in the Lord, and by a submission of our desires to His will.

Thanks-living, which flows from “an attitude of gratitude,” is the result of God’s grace. The word gratitude is derived from the Latin word gratia, which means grace, graciousness, or gratefulness. Considerable research confirms how important it is to express (and thus cultivate) gratitude toward others. A few years ago, the Harvard Mental Health Letter summarized some of that research. Dr. Robert A. Emmons of the University of California, Davis, and Dr. Michael E. McCullough of the University of Miami conducted a study in which they asked participants to write a few sentences each week, focusing on particular topics. Here is a summary of what they learned:

One group wrote about things they were grateful for that had occurred during the week. A second group wrote about daily irritations or things that had displeased them, and the third wrote about events that had affected them (with no emphasis on them being positive or negative). After 10 weeks, those who wrote about gratitude were more optimistic and felt better about their lives. Surprisingly, they also exercised more and had fewer visits to physicians than those who focused on sources of aggravation. [1]

In a related study, Dr. Martin E. P. Seligman, a psychologist at the University of Pennsylvania, had 411 people write and personally deliver a letter of gratitude to someone they believed had never been properly thanked. The result was an almost immediate increase in the happiness of the letter writers.

This research confirms the wisdom contained in the Bible. Many of the Psalms mention the importance of being thankful, and the apostle Paul exhorts Christians to give thanks “in everything… for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you” (1 Thessalonians 5:18 NKJV). Practicing thanks-living leads to both spiritual and physical health. Conversely, being unthankful is characteristic of those not living in communion with God as noted by Paul in Romans 1:21 (ESV): “They did not honor him as God or give thanks to him.” As we live in union and communion with God, we cannot help but be thankful.

In Letters to Malcolm, Chiefly on Prayer [2], C. S. Lewis helps us see how being thankful is woven into a life of worshipping God. He notes that when we give thanks to God we often focus on what God has done for us—all his blessings, especially the gift of redemption through the atoning work of Jesus. But sometimes when we turn to God with thanksgiving, we begin to realize that the reason God does all that we are thanking him for is because of who God is. It’s at this turning point in our thinking that our thanksgiving goes deeper, turning into adoration. In adoration we are thankful not so much for what God has done for us, but for who God is—for that is why God does what he does!

Being thankful is one thing. But knowing Who we’re thanking leads into true thanks-living—a life of worship, fellowship and communion with the Triune God: Father, Son and Spirit.

I’m grateful every day of the year for each of you, and for your faithfulness to our God. I pray blessings upon your celebrations of Thanksgiving whenever and however they come your way.

Thankful to God for everything,
Joseph Tkach

________________

[1] http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletter_article/in-praise-of-gratitude

[2] C.S. Lewis, Letters to Malcolm: Chiefly on Prayer, Letter 17

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

The Bible is one of the world’s most accessible books, having been translated into most of the world’s major languages [1], and in many of those languages, made available in multiple versions. People with computers, tablets, or smartphones are able to download the Bible for free, and even hear it read aloud. Yet, with this accessibility, many people do not read the Bible. Thankfully, most Christians do, but do they understand what they are reading?

Few of the early Christians had access to Scripture, and even when they did, most were unable to read. As a result, learning in the early church came mostly through oral teaching, which often included the reading of letters from the apostles that were circulated among the churches. A few churches had scrolls of the Old Testament translated into Greek, but again, most early Christians could not read.

Some house churches had cabinets (similar to those used in Jewish synagogues) in which they stored letters from the apostles and others. Which letters each congregation possessed varied. Most probably had copies of some or all of the Gospels, a few of Paul’s letters, a letter or two from John and other apostles, and perhaps a copy of the Acts of the Apostles. Many had a copy of a story from someone called The Shepherd, along with letters from a Roman pastor named Clement. Most would not have had copies of some of the letters we now find in the New Testament—Hebrews and 2 Peter, for example. When gathering for worship, many early Christians made use of what we call the Apostles’ Creed (they called it the Rule of Faith), which summarized the apostles’ teaching concerning God—Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Despite this diversity in teaching resources, the New Testament churches experienced great unity, due largely to the oral teaching based on stories of Jesus and letters from the apostles, understood in light of the rule of faith. This teaching gave them the common, grand understanding that Scripture holds out for us today, namely that all Scripture is about Jesus. Jesus was what the early Christians taught, and what they shared with others. Jesus was (and still is) the gospel.

One thing is sure—when early Christians gathered, they were not arguing over the correct days for ancient Israel’s festivals, the meaning of Hebrew words, or the necessity of learning Hebrew to know God’s love and plan for them. Even the apostles, who as good Jews had observed the festivals, understood that the festivals were part of the old covenant of promise, which pointed to the ultimate fulfillment of the covenant in Jesus (through his life, death, resurrection and ascension). They never taught that Israel’s holy days revealed anything but Jesus.

It is disappointing that among those who read and even regularly study the Bible, interpretations have developed ranging from slight variations in understanding, to totally missing the point. This happens for a number of reasons, but I want to point out one that plagues Sabbatarians in particular. Reading that God rested on the seventh day, then gave Israel the command to rest on the seventh day, Sabbatarians use the Sabbath as the “lens” through which they read and interpret all Scripture. In doing so they completely miss that the Sabbath command was about a covenant grounded in a particular place and time, having largely to do with promises concerning the Promised Land. But before we judge the flaw in their thinking, we must admit that many of us have had the experience of hardening our mental defenses against those who tell us that seventh-day Sabbath observance is not part of an obedient Christian’s life.

Sabbatarians are mistaken in using a lens other than Jesus to interpret Scripture. Jesus warned of this error when he said this to the experts in the Law of Moses (the Torah):

You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life. (John 5:39-40)

Jesus was not saying there is something wrong with the Torah—he was criticizing their use of it as their lens to interpret Scripture. Jesus is to be that lens, and that is why he proclaimed himself Lord of the Sabbath (Luke 6:5). Jesus called upon the experts in the Law (and all people) to interpret the Sabbath in terms of who he is, not in terms of any preunderstanding they might have concerning the Sabbath.

The apostle John had this truth concerning Jesus’ primacy emphasized to him by an angel:

The angel said to me, “Write this: Blessed are those who are invited to the wedding supper of the Lamb!” And he added, “These are the true words of God.” At this I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, “Don’t do that! I am a fellow servant with you and with your brothers and sisters who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For it is the Spirit of prophecy who bears testimony to Jesus.” (Revelation 19:9-10)

Scripture and prophecy are not unlocked and understood by anything other than the One to whom they point—Jesus Christ. He (and he alone) is the focus of all Scripture—not geo-political alliances, not British-Israelism, and not Israel’s seven festivals. God has given us the New Testament, which, through the lens of Jesus, interprets the Old Testament. When we use the Old Testament to interpret the New Testament, we make the mistake of doing it “bass-ackwards,” as the old spoonerism goes. An insistence on keeping the Sabbath on a particular day in order to be righteous before God is a prime example of this mistake. Beware of anyone telling you differently!

The Sabbath was given to point us to Jesus, not the other way around. The Old Testament Sabbath is a sign, which like all signs is given to point to its fulfillment—its reality. The commandment to “keep the Sabbath holy” is magnified under the New Covenant. Under the old covenant, the tabernacle and later the temple were holy because God made them his place of dwelling among his people. This was a temporary arrangement designed to point to Jesus coming and making his dwelling among us. Once Jesus fulfilled his atoning work on the cross, leading to his resurrection and ascension, he moved from dwelling among us (John 1:14) to living in us through the Spirit (Ephesians 3:16-17). God, through Jesus, by the Spirit, now dwells in us, making us and all our time holy. Under the old covenant, God’s people sought a holy closeness to God once a week; under the new covenant, we are given a new life with Jesus living in us and transforming us from the inside out. It is no longer a once-a-week time with God, it is now a new life in him and he in us. Jesus, and not any day, is our Sabbath rest, and so we celebrate him when we gather as his people.

When we read the Bible, we do so to help us see Jesus—to help us learn from and about him. We read the Bible to help us understand that, by the Spirit, Christ lives in us as we respond to him in faith, hope and love. We read Holy Scripture to help us see God’s faithfulness for his beloved throughout all history—working all things in preparation for the turning point of history—the Incarnation, which was God’s plan from before the foundation of the world. We read the Bible to remind us that we are God’s chosen ones—made holy and righteous through Jesus. We read the Bible to see how God has invited us to join him in his continuing work of revealing himself to others so they too can know the true lens of life, Jesus Christ. We read the Bible because it is the written word of God designed to always point us to the living Word, Jesus, our Lord.

Reading the Bible with joy, through the lens of Jesus,
Joseph Tkach

______________

[1] As noted by Wycliffe Global Alliance, though there has been much progress in recent years, much more needs to be done to get the Bible into the hands of all people groups on earth. There currently are about 7000 languages in active use in the world, and at least one book of Scripture exists in over 2,900 of these languages. However, of the (approximately) 7.2 billion people on earth, about 1.5 billion of them do not have the full Bible available in their first language, though over 663 million of these have the New Testament. For more information on this topic, click here.

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

Shakespeare’s line from Hamlet, “The lady doth protest too much, methinks,” often is quoted to describe someone who seeks to convince others of something that is not true. The line comes to mind when I hear atheists protesting claims that atheism is a religion. In support of their protests, some atheists offer these syllogistic comparisons:

• If atheism is a religion then bald is a hair color. While this may sound almost borderline profound, all it does is compare a false statement with a category error. Baldness has nothing to do with hair color. Certainly bald is not a color, but since atheism exists in some sense, it may very well have a color like other religions even if it has a unique color, as does Christianity. Moreover, I’ve never met a bald person who doesn’t have a hair color. An absence of hair on the head does not equate with the absence of a hair color.

• If atheism is a religion then health is a disease. Once again, this may at first glance sound like a valid syllogism but it is nothing more than doubletalk that once again compares a falsity with a category error, a logical error. I should also note that studies have shown that belief in God correlates not only to reports of improved mental health among the faithful, but also better physical health compared to nonbelievers. In fact, nearly 350 studies of physical health and 850 studies of mental health that have used religious and spiritual variables have found that religious involvement and spirituality are associated with better health outcomes. [1]

• If atheism is a religion, then abstinence is a sexual position. Once again juxtaposing two thoughts doesn’t mean that they are real proof of something. One can go on and on composing such nonsensical statements. Pointing out logical errors does not tell us what is true in fact.

The US Supreme Court has ruled on more than one occasion that atheism is to be treated as equivalent to a religion under the law (i.e. it is a protected belief system at the same level as any religion). Atheists believe, of course, that there are no gods. As such, atheism is a belief about gods and thus qualifies as a religion, much in the same way Buddhism is described as a religion.

Religious views about God fall into three categories: monotheistic (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), polytheistic (Hinduism, Mormonism), and nontheistic (Buddhism, atheism). One might place atheism in a fourth category by saying that it’s antitheistic. In Atheism as a Religion: An Introduction to the World’s Least Understood Faith, Mike Dobbins highlights ways that atheism mirrors religion; here is an excerpt (from The Christian Post):

One sacred symbol to atheists is the ‘A’ that symbolizes atheism. Three ‘A’ symbols are prominent in atheism. One ‘A’ symbol was created in 2007 by Atheist Alliance International and has a circle around it. The circle is meant to symbolize the unity of all atheists and the inclusion of all other atheist symbols. As you can tell, not only are these symbols for atheism, there is atheist religious symbolism within them that only atheists or those who study atheism know….

Many atheists demonstrated just how sacred the symbol ‘A’ is to them in the Christmas of 2013. Since my hometown city of Chicago allows a Hanukkah Menorah and Nativity scene to display on government property during the holiday season, the atheists asked to display their own religious symbol so the government wouldn’t give the appearance to be endorsing one religion or the other. The monument the Freedom From Religion Foundation chose was a giant… letter ‘A’ which stood 8 feet tall and lit up red at night for all to see. Countless atheists showed respect for the ‘A’ by making a pilgrimage to the site where the ‘A’ was displayed and having their picture taken with the ‘A’ which I’m sure will be kept as a cherished keep sake for many. Still, the giant red A was not enough. They also advocated for their atheist faith by erecting a sign that read, “There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.”

The Debunking Atheists blog has a helpful list of atheism’s key views that clearly are religious in nature. Here is an edited version of that list:

• Atheists have their own worldview. Materialism (the view that the material world is all there is) is the lens through which atheists view the world. Far from being the open-minded, follow-the-evidence-wherever thinkers they claim to be, they interpret all data ONLY within the very narrow worldview of materialism. They are like a guy wearing dark sunglasses who chides all others for thinking the sun is out.

• Atheists have their own orthodoxy. Orthodoxy is a set of normative beliefs acceptable to a faith community. Just as there are orthodox Christian beliefs, there is an atheist orthodoxy as well. In brief, it is that EVERYTHING can be explained as the product of unintentional, undirected, purposeless evolution. No truth claim is acceptable if it cannot be subjected to scientific scrutiny and empirical confirmation.

• Atheists have their own brand of apostasy. Apostasy is to abandon one’s former religious faith. Antony Flew was for many years one of the world’s most prominent atheists. And then he did the unthinkable: he changed his mind. You can imagine the response of the “open-minded, tolerant” New Atheist movement. Flew was vilified. Richard Dawkins accused Flew of “tergiversation.” It’s a fancy word for apostasy. By their own admission, then, Flew abandoned their “faith” [and became a kind of Deist].

• Atheists have their own prophets: Nietzsche, Russell, Feuerbach, Lenin and Marx.

• Atheists have their own messiah: Charles Darwin, who in their view drove the definitive stake through the heart of theism by providing a comprehensive explanation of life that never needs God as a cause or explanation. Daniel Dennett has even written a book seeking to define religious faith itself as merely an evolutionary development.

• Atheists have their own preachers and evangelists: Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens.

• Atheists have faith. Though their writings ridicule faith (Harris’s book is called The End of Faith), atheism is a faith-based enterprise. Because the existence of God cannot be proven or disproven, denying it takes faith in their own scientific powers of observation and rationality. Atheistic evolution has no explanation for why our universe is orderly, predictable, measurable. It has no rational explanation for why there is such a thing as rational explanation. There is no accounting for the things they hope you won’t ask: Why do we have self-awareness? What makes us conscious? From what source is there a universal sense of right and wrong? How do we know that there is no life after death? How do we know that nothing more than material things exist? How do we know that the only things that exist are (conveniently) those things that can be known by our current scientific-empirical methods? Atheists take such unexplained things by faith—they assume things without having a sound rational or empirical basis.

Contrary to the protestations of atheists, the reality is that their belief system is a faith-based enterprise with practices and beliefs just like other religions. How ironic that atheists, insisting that atheism is not a religion, rail against other religions, even setting up competing displays next to displays from other religions.

I hasten to add, though, that some Christians make essentially the same mistake when they rail against other religions (even other forms of Christianity). We Christians should keep in mind that our faith is not a mere religion that needs to be asserted or defended. Instead, Christianity, at its core, is a living relationship with the Triune God: Father, Son and Spirit. Our calling as Christians is not to push another belief system on the world, but to participate with God, as his ambassadors (2 Corinthians 5:18-21), in his ongoing ministry of reconciliation—letting others know the good news (gospel) that they are forgiven, redeemed, and loved by a God who desires a relationship of trust (faith), hope and love with all people.

Loving that authentic Christianity is not a religion but a relationship,
Joseph Tkach

_______________

[1] “Religious involvement, spirituality, and medicine: implications for clinical practice,” Mayo Clinic Proceedings vol. 76:12, pp. 1225-1235. Retrieved from Mayo Clinic Proceedings website on July 20, 2014.

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

Perhaps, like me, you find the current U.S. presidential election cycle to be as dismaying as any in our lifetime. Nearly everyone I converse with about it opines that we should have better choices. I agree.

I’m often asked: “Are you a Democrat or a Republican?” My reply is always the same: “Neither one.” When asked who I’m voting for, I say that it’s a private matter. Occasionally I add that I don’t agree with all the positions of all the candidates (the same goes for the party platforms). Sometimes I note that I’m for all people in all parties because they are all God’s children, or I say that I’m on God’s side—since he always is with us and for us (that last comment often gets some strange looks!).

On occasion, I share a quote from P.J. O’Rourke, a political satirist who strikes me as a modern-day version of Mark Twain. He said this:

The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn’t work and then they get elected and prove it.

O’Rourke also made this remark: “If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it’s free!” Another (anonymous) source concurs: “Talk is cheap… except when government does it!”

Mark Twain was well-known for his quips about the U.S. federal government. He joked, “The only difference between a tax man and a taxidermist is that the taxidermist leaves the skin.” In today’s entertainment-crazed media environment with its lack of integrity and truth when it comes to reporting the “news,” I’ve come to see one of Mark Twain’s quotations as prophetic: “If you don’t read the newspaper you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed.” I believe most of us would agree that, in our day, we’d need to add television and internet news to his quote.

Political humor, especially when it involves comments from famous historical personalities, can help keep us from getting overly depressed about politics. For example, Winston Churchill, in a quip about the economy, said this: “I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity, is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.” A related quip came from French economist Frederic Bastiat, who said this: “Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavours to live at the expense of everybody else.” And who can forget President John F. Kennedy’s great quote in his inaugural address: “My fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country.”

Here’s one more quote—this time from President Ronald Reagan: “The government is like a baby’s alimentary canal, with a happy appetite at one end and no responsibility at the other.” As the election draws near, I am reminded of Reagan’s campaign slogan: “Are you better off than you were four years ago?” While I’m registered as a no-party person, I can honestly say that President Reagan struck me as one of the most honest politicians in my lifetime. Perhaps his question can help bring clarity when you go about choosing a candidate to support with your vote.

A new president means another transition for our country. The new president will usher in another new beginning. Voters might disagree as to which party and candidate is most likely to bring that new beginning, but there is wide agreement on what they’d like to see happen. We all want security, which includes physical safety and financial prosperity, as well as the freedom to pursue fulfillment and personal well-being.

Though I won’t tell you how to vote, I do want to remind you that our hope, and thus the confidence we have for the future, transcends this or any election. Our hope is in Jesus, who has promised us life everlasting in the joy of the household of God. Let us all remember the apostle Paul’s instructions to Timothy in 1 Timothy 2:1-3—here’s how it’s rendered in the Message Bible:

Pray especially for rulers and their governments to rule well so we can be quietly about our business of living simply, in humble contemplation. This is the way our Savior God wants us to live.

In the U.S., citizens have the personal and civic right to choose local and national leaders without fearing for themselves or their families. I encourage Christians to prayerfully exercise this right in ways that (as much as possible) protect our freedom to worship and spread the gospel. Of course, not voting is a right in the U.S., but I believe we should not abandon our privilege to vote. Sadly, surveys show that about two out of five self-professed Christians do not vote. About one in five eligible Christians are not even registered to vote.

Regarding our decision as to who to vote for, I want to address a fallacy we’re hearing increasingly this election cycle, namely that failing to vote for one candidate is the equivalent of voting for their opponent. This year it is being said that not voting for Donald Trump is a vote for Hillary Clinton, or that failing to vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for Donald Trump. But this assertion is a mathematical absurdity. Simply put, if you do not vote, then no one gets your vote.

Whomever we decide to vote for in the coming election, our decision, as Christians, should be based on prayer and the study of God’s word, along with weighing the best information available about the realities of the choices offered. With this approach, we will make our decision knowing that our Father in heaven, with his Son and the Holy Spirit, already voted for us (and all people) long before we were born. And that’s an election that will stand forever in Jesus Christ, who is our representative and our substitute. We belong to the God who loves us, and there are no term limits on our place in his family.

Joyful that in Christ we are all elected,
Joseph Tkach

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, all inspired by the Holy Spirit, began their Gospels in different ways. Mark, likely the first to write, started with John the Baptist’s ministry and Jesus’ baptism. Matthew, perhaps referring to Mark’s Gospel, began with Jesus’ genealogy, going back to Abraham and God’s promises (Genesis 12). Luke, perhaps with Mark’s and Matthew’s accounts in hand, began with John the Baptist’s birth (chapter one), then Jesus’ birth (chapter two), then in chapter three with Jesus’ baptism along with a genealogy of Jesus reaching back to Adam (Genesis 1 and 2). John, who wrote last, began his account before creation.

In John’s Gospel we learn a great deal about the nature of Jesus and of God. In John 1:1, the apostle tells about the Word (the pre-incarnate Son of God) who both was with God (pointing to God’s personal distinctions) and was God (pointing to God’s unity). Then in John 14, he records what Jesus said that pointed to the Holy Spirit’s divinity. John thus shares what Paul refers to as “the deep things of God” (1 Corinthians 2:10 ASV).

By inspiring each Gospel writer to give a distinctive version of Jesus’ story, the Holy Spirit painted a masterful portrait of both who Jesus is, and who God is as Father, Son and Spirit. It took time for this understanding to come into focus in the minds and hearts of the disciples, just as Jesus had indicated: “The Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you” (John 14:26).

In addition to the unfolding of this portrait of the Trinity in John, note what we find in the other Gospels:

• Matthew records Jesus’ instructions to baptize “into the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19 ASV). Notice that Jesus himself proclaims that God’s one “name” (name here is singular), which is “Father…Son…and Holy Spirit.” We should not miss the fact that Jesus has instructed us to baptize people into the three-personed-one-name of God (the Holy Trinity!).

• Mark notes the Trinity in his account of Jesus’ baptism: “At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. Just as Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: ‘You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased'” (Mark 1:9-11).

• Luke gives a tri-personal account of Jesus’ baptism, and also of the angel’s announcement to Mary that she will give birth to the Son of God: “‘Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.’ And Mary said to the angel, ‘How will this be, since I am a virgin?’ And the angel answered her, ‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God.'” (Luke 1:30-35 ESV). Notice the mention of God, the Son of God, and the Holy Spirit—one God, three divine persons.

Let’s quickly address a particularly ignorant argument that, sadly, holds some people spellbound against the doctrine of the Trinity. That argument holds that if the Spirit caused Mary to conceive Jesus, then Jesus would be the son of the Holy Spirit rather than the son of the Father. Their reasoning is erroneous in at least three ways: First, it ignores that God is one. Second, it assumes the Spirit is separate from God. Third, it assumes that the Spirit operates the same way a human person does. Early theologians viewed this faulty reasoning as idolatrous—thinking of God as if he is a creature and acts like a creature. To avoid that error, they came up with a way to appropriately distinguish the Spirit’s action from that of a human male. Mary, they said, conceived Jesus by the Spirit not through sexual relations, but through hearing the Spirit’s announcement. Through speaking to her at just the right time and place through the agency of an angel, Mary was enabled to hear and then receive the Word of God, who was thus implanted in her. What happened to Mary was echoed in what James wrote in his epistle concerning the implanting of the word of God in those who, like Mary, respond in faithful obedience to God’s call on their lives (James 1:18 ESV; James 1:21 ESV).

Rather than teaching that there are three separate Gods, the doctrine of the Trinity teaches that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three distinctions of the one God. The notion that there are three separate Gods is tritheism, not the Trinity. We always begin with the truth of the oneness of God. Father, Son and Spirit are not three separate beings who negotiate plans to act together. God does everything in unity of purpose arising out of unity of being. The Gospel writers then tell us that Jesus was begotten of the Father (John 1:14 ASV; John 1:18 ASV; John 3:16 ASV) and conceived by the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:18; Luke 1:35). From the beginning, the purpose of the triune God was that the Word (the Son of God), incarnate in Jesus, would come to reveal God to us.

The apostle Paul continues this theme in his epistles, showing that the fullness of the Godhead dwelt in Jesusm who is fully human and fully God. Further, Paul teaches that the Holy Spirit is in us and does things for us: “…The Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans. And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for God’s people in accordance with the will of God” (Romans 8:26-27). Though we don’t know how to pray very well, and often are at a complete loss for words, the Spirit acts on our behalf—searching our thoughts and emotions when we pray, expressing them to the Father far better than we can. This is not something a mere power without personhood can do—it’s what God does on our behalf to build the relationship between us and God. Paul continues: “Who then is the one who condemns? No one. Christ Jesus who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us” (Romans 8:34). His point is that God is for us. Just as the Father interceded by sending the Son, and the Son interceded through his life, death and resurrection, the Holy Spirit continues that intercession through our daily prayers. The whole God makes intercessions for us out of their oneness as the three-personed God.

The Bible reveals God’s transcendence as well as the immanence of his triune nature. God doesn’t need an answering machine. Within his very being, double intercession is being made for us through Jesus and the Holy Spirit who intercede for us as we pray. Thus God knows and hears our every thought. As Thomas F. Torrance liked to say, God is not a mute God—he is an eloquent God who speaks, and does so personally. Our God is a communicative God who speaks to us, and to whom we may speak in prayer.

I love the way the apostle Peter sums it all up:

[God’s] divine power has given us everything we need for a godly life through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature, having escaped the corruption in the world caused by evil desires. (2 Peter 1:3-4)

In and through God—Father, Son and Holy Spirit—we participate now in the divine life, looking forward to glory when we will share that life in all its fullness in a time when there is no more pain or sorrow.

Loving that God includes us in his love and life,
Joseph Tkach

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

A good friend recently told me about his new diet based on portion control and healthy food choices (like tofu). I asked how it was going and he replied, “I don’t mean to brag, but I finished my 14-day allocation of diet food in three hours and twenty minutes!” I then asked how he prepares his tofu and he replied, “First, I throw it in the trash, then I grill some meat.” He noted that he also tried exercise: “I did a week’s worth of cardio after walking into a spider’s web!” I don’t know about you, but it seems to me that his understanding of diet and exercise is just a bit lacking!

There are, of course, other areas where understanding seems in short supply. We see this in the realm of philosophy where one of the big questions is this: Which is true: materialism or idealism? Though there are commonalities between these ideas, and various forms of each one, these two perspectives are largely polar opposites, resulting in debates between atheists (who typically embrace materialism) and theists (who can be said to embrace a form of idealism). Materialists generally believe everything can be explained in relation to matter, which then is lumped together in various ways. Idealists generally believe that ideas (which, by definition, are non-material) make up fundamental reality, and thus the only “thing” that is knowable is consciousness, which includes a person’s thoughts, ideals, principles and values.

Believing that mind is merely the byproduct of what happens in the brain, materialists view consciousness as an illusion. Various experiments have supposedly lent credence to this notion, but none are convincing, especially when the key “proof” offered is that our brains work by lying to ourselves. As atheist-philosopher Daniel Dennett put it, “Half the time our brains are actively fooling us!” (click here for his talk). With my tongue deeply buried within my cheek, I offer this response: “Officer, my brain was fooling me again, I thought I had a green light and all those other drivers’ brains told them they had a red light!” Well, I doubt the “my brain is fooling me” defense would hold up in court.

It may interest you to know that Dennett’s close associate, Richard Dawkins, lost badly when debating three notable theists: click here for Dawkins’ debate with John Lennox, here for his debate with Keith Ward, and here for his debate with Alister McGrath. For critiques of Dawkin’s positions set out in these debates and presented in more detail in The God Delusion, see Alister and Joanna McGrath’s book, The Dawkin’s Delusion and the article “The Dawkins Confusion” by theist-philosopher Alvin Plantinga.

Commenting on the origin of our humanity, professor of philosophy Quentin Smith wrote that “the most reasonable belief is that we came from nothing, by nothing and for nothing.” [1] Though you don’t likely agree with that assessment, you might be interested in what Smith wrote recently concerning a major renaissance in the field of philosophy where an increasing number of philosophers are embracing a theistic/idealist worldview. Why? According to Smith it’s because theists/idealists have been winning debates with atheists/materialists. According to Smith, “Contrary to popular opinion, God is not ‘dead’ in academia—he returned to life in the late 1960s and is now alive and well in his last academic stronghold, philosophy departments.” [2] Of course God wasn’t dead before the 60s either, though many refused then (as now) to open their eyes to see him, and for a number of decades, the topic of God was ignored by most philosophers. Things have certainly changed in academic philosophy!

Materialistic and atheistic philosophical arguments don’t seem to faze God, nor do they get in the way of what he is doing to make himself known to humankind. Peter Berger, a leading proponent of what is known as the “secularization theory,” which states that the more modern and technological our world becomes, the more secular it becomes, recently abandoned that theory, saying he and almost everyone in the field has changed their minds because the evidence demands it. He elaborates:

The real situation is that most of the world is as religious as it ever was. You have enormous explosions of religion in the world… In fact, you can say every major religious tradition has been going through a period of resurgence in the last 30, 40 years or so… anything but secularization. [3]

Though we are not materialists, we do acknowledge that we are made from matter. We believe God created matter out of nothing (ex nihilo) and then, as the Master Potter (Isaiah 45:9-12), formed us from “the dust [clay] of the ground” (Genesis 2:7). But Genesis also says that, in part, we are non-material beings. God breathed into us the “breath of life.” If there was no one (God) who is spirit to breathe that immaterial, life-giving “breath” into us, and then sustain it, we would either not exist, or fall back into non-existence. But we do exist because God, the non-material, living, dynamic and personal source of all being and existence, gave us material existence along with non-material mind (consciousness)—the ability to think and reason, and thus have a relationship with him.

This idealist, theistic perspective seems to be growing in acceptance among philosophers who formerly were radical materialists. Isn’t that just like God! Just when it seems that bankrupt intellectualism and materialism have gained the upper hand, he shows up with his idealist revelation. Paul put it this way: “[God’s] invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse” (Romans 1:20 ESV). I’m delighted (but not surprised) that God is revealing himself to materialists who, in the past, attempted to deny God’s existence (or relevance).

It’s my prayer that those leaning away from materialism toward idealism (theism in particular) will continue that journey in response to the Word and Spirit of God, finding faith in God’s personal self-revelation and self-giving in Jesus Christ. In doing so they will be following in the footsteps of Oxford scholar and former atheist, C.S. Lewis.

Forever in awe of God’s incomparable goodness, knowledge and power,
Joseph Tkach

____________

[1] Quentin Smith, The Uncaused Beginning of the Universe, quoted in William Lane Craig and Quentin Smith, Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology (1993), 135.

[2] Quentin Smith, “The Metaphilosophy of Naturalism,” Philo. 4.2 (2001), 197.

[3] Peter Berger, “Six Decades as a Worldwide Religion Watcher: Observations & Lessons Learned.” Ethics & Public Policy Center, accessed online on July 22, 2014 at http://eppc.org/publications/berger/.