Farewells

I slapped a working title on this post before beginning to write, something like, "Farewell 2005, we hardly knew ye." Yes, I was conscious that it sounded rather silly to bid farewell to a nebulous thing such as a year, but hey, I wasn't feeling creative at the moment.

Only as I prepared to write did it occur to me that farewell might be the best word to describe the year my family and I have experienced. By God's grace and mercy, we have fared well this year.

I could put together a long post about all the many blessings for which I am thankful. We have had our share of struggles, just as any family does, but in this year of wars and natural disasters, I can easily think of greater struggles that might have come our way and did not.

We have fared well this year, for our heavenly Father has fared us well. As I look ahead to 2006, I rest in the assurance that He will fare us well still, no matter what He ordains for us, for He works all things together for good for those who love Him, for those who are called according to His purpose (Romans 8:28).

In other words, all His providences are good to a fare-thee-well (n. 1 : the utmost degree 2 : a state of perfection).

GtG

The Word in flesh among us

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

"There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.

"He was in the worold, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become chiodren of God, to those who believe in His name; who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

"And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth."

John 1:1-14

"The very highest"

Here's another installment in my "Lord of the Rings" appreciation posts. For this one, I skip way ahead, to the second book, The Two Towers, to the chapter titled "The Window on the West." Frodo and Sam are trying to find a way into Mordor to destroy the One ring, and are captured by Faramir, brother of their former companion, Boromir, and son of the steward of Gondor, Denethor. Boromir was enticed by the ring and tried to take it from Frodo, and the hobbits fear that Faramir will do the same, so they try valiantly to conceal the purpose of their journey. But Faramir soon realizes what they are carrying.

One reason I like this scene so much is that Faramir is shown as a great, noble man, a true leader--as Sam recognizes. I've never been sure what to make of the character of Faramir in the movies. One moment he seems to be all he is pictured as in the books. The next, well, he seems to be a sniveling little boy trying to impress his dad. I guess the filmmakers felt he was a little too perfect in the book and wanted to introduce some conflict to his character. In my opinion, it didn't work. Here's a glimpse of the real Faramir.

The hobbits came back to their seats and sat very quiet. Men turned back to their drink and their talk, perceiving that their captain had had some jest or other with the little guests, and that it was over.

"Well, Frodo, now at last we understand one another," said Faramir. "If you took this thing on yourself, unwilling, at others' asking, then you have pity and honour from me. And I marvel at you: to keep it hid and not to use it. You are a new people and a new world to me. Are all your kin of like sort? Your land must be a realm of peace and content, and there must gardeners be in high honour."

"Not all is well there," said Frodo, "but certainly gardeners are honoured."

"But folk must grow weary there, even in their gardens, as do all things under the Sun of this world. And you are far from home and wayworn. No more tonight. Sleep, both of you--in peace, if you can. Fear not! I do not wish to see it, or touch it, or know more of it than I know (which is enough), lest peril perchance waylay me and I fall lower in the test than Frodo son of Drogo. Go now to rest--but first tell me only, if you will, whither you wish to go, and what to do. For I must watch, and wait, and think. Time passes. In the morning we must each go swiftly on the ways appointed to us."

Frodo had felt himself trembling as the first shock of fear passed. Now a great weariness came down on him like a cloud. He could dissemble and resist no longer.

"I was going to find a way into Mordor," he said faintly. "I was going to Gorgoroth. I must find the Mountain of Fire and cast the thing into the gulf of Doom. Gandalf said so. I do not think I shall ever get there."

Faramir stared at him for a moment in grave astonishment. Then suddenly he caught him as he swayed, and lifting him gently, carried him to the bed and laid him there, and covered him warmly. At once he fell into a deep sleep.

Another bed was set beside him for his servant. Sam hesitated for a moment, then bowing very low: "Good night, Captain, my lord," he said. "You took the chance, sir."

"Did I so?" said Faramir.

"Yes sir, and showed your quality: the very highest."

Faramir smiled. "A pert servant, Master Samwise. But nay: the praise of the praiseworthy is above all rewards. Yet there was naught in this to praise. I had no lure or desire to do other than I have done."

"Ah well, sir," said Sam, "you said my master had an elvish air; and that was good and true. But I can say this: you have an air too, sir, that reminds me of, of--well, Gandalf, of wizards."

"Maybe," said Faramir. "Maybe you discern from far away the air of Numenor. Good night."

A sky-high day

Several things high in the sky left me sky-high today (or at least feeling blessed).

I usually head out to the end of the driveway to get my morning paper well before dark, and today was no exception. When I make these brief excursions, I always enjoy taking a look at the night sky. I'm not much of an astronomer, but I can spot the Big Dipper, Orion's belt, or Mars, and I usually can tell you what phase the moon is in. This morning the sky was two-thirds clouded over, but the western sky was clear and a beautiful full moon hung low there. At the sight of it, I remembered that the annual Gemenid meteor shower was peaking this morning. It was not supposed to be spectacular due to the overpowering light of the full moon. But coming back up the driveway, my house obscured the moon, and I happened to glance up just in time to see a falling meteor streak through a gap in the clouds--always a delightful experience.

Here's a photo of a Gemenid meteor (taken by Alan Dyer in British Columbia, Canada, on Tuesday night) that looks like the one I saw this morning:

Later, as I headed for work, I noticed a beautiful sundog. What's are sundogs? Also known as a parhelion, it's an atmospheric effect that looks like a little patch of rainbow. They're produced by the refraction of light in tiny ice crystals in the air. They always appear 22 degrees on either side of the sun, but I could see only one today. Still, it was a pleasant sight. Here's a picture, shot by Clay S. Turner (the sundogs are off to the sides):

Finally, heading home, I had the neat experience of following a low-flying red-tailed hawk for a quarter-mile or so. He kept ahead of me, even though I was doing around 40 mph, then swooped to the side to perch in a tree. I always enjoy the sight of raptors in flight, but seeing one "going my way" was a new, uplifting experience. He looked like this fella:

All these celestial treats follow the wonderful sight of Venus shining powerfully in the southeast in the early evening here in the Southern United States, as well as the sight a couple of nights ago of the moon and Mars side by side.

The heavens declare the glory of God. . . . (Psalm 19:1).

"Integrity" rules!

If you were asked which word in the English language was looked up most often on Merriam-Webster's online dictionary in 2005, what would you guess?

Would you guess inept? Sorry, that was only No. 10 on the list. By tracking when various words got the most hits, the Merriam-Webster editors linked the popularity of that word to a prime-time news conference by President Bush that ended with the networks cutting away to regular programming.

In a year of disasters, you'd be on the right track to guess that refugee, tsunami, and levee were popular searches. But those words were Nos. 2, 6, and 9 respectively. Likewise, with all the news stories about bird flu, the word pandemic would be a good guess, but it was only No. 7.

How about contempt or filibuster? The CIA leak probe in Washington landed New York Times reporter Judith Miller in jail for contempt of court. And judicial filibusters were a huge issue in the nation's capital. But those words were only Nos. 3 and 4 respectively.

The election of Pope Benedict XVI during a conclave in the spring sparked a lot of curiosity, but that word came in at No. 8.

Would you have guessed insipid? I wouldn't have. But after American Idol judge Simon Cowell used that term to describe a performance, lots and lots of people went looking for the definition, enough to make it the fifth most looked-up word on www.merriam-webster.com.

No, the word that drew the most hits this year was one that seemed to be a part of discussions across many segments of society: integrity. Almost 200,000 people went looking for a definition of integrity this year, the Merriam-Webster folks say. They attribute the word's popularity to a concern about values and morality.

Of course, they needn't have gone to Merriam-Webster for a definition of that word. They can find it on the home page of my business: www.integrityeditorial.com.

I'd be lion if I said there was an uproar

USA Today offered a story today on the reception by Christians of the new film The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. Here are a couple of relevant quotes:

Liz Strand, 31, of Minneapolis says she usually watches movies at home, via Netflix, but Narnia got her out to the theater.

"I have read all of The Chronicles of Narnia roughly 20 times, starting when I was in third grade, continuing up until my last reading of it this August," she says. "When I first heard the movie was being released, I wasn't sure I wanted to see it because I was worried it wouldn't live up to my expectations. (But) I loved it."

Strand says the religious message is there. But it is "up to the reader/viewer how much they want to read into it, which is part of the fun. C.S. Lewis wrote a great story that can appeal to anyone, yet has many allegories if one wants to make the connections."

Lily Lord, 8, of Falls Church, Va., finished reading the book with her mother the night before the movie opened. "It's a really good movie," she said. "They made it seem just like the book." Lily says she identified most with Lucy Pevensie, who discovers the wardrobe that takes the children to Narnia, because Lily, like Lucy, is the youngest of four.

Mom Cyndee Lord, 47, says the movie got raves from all of her children, ages 8 to 15. "They loved it." And the connections to Jesus "didn't really make any difference to them. I told them and they said 'Oh, really?' "

OK. People who like the Narnia story saw the movie and liked it. The Christian imagery didn't bother them. Nice story, but not exactly front-page news.

But let's talk about the headline on the story, shall we?

Back in my newspaper copy editing days, if I had worked this story, I might have written a headline along these lines:

'Narnia' viewers welcome film's faithful treatment of story
or
'Narnia' makers please fans by sticking to book's plot

In short, I would written a headline that would have put a positive spin on the film's premiere--not because that's the way I would have wanted people to think about the event, but because the story itself warranted such a headline.

But the USA Today copy editor who handled this story did something different. Here is his or her headline:

Little religious uproar from 'Narnia' opening

I have two thoughts about this headline. First, it seems to me that the copy editor was expecting an uproar from Christians, and the news (in his or her mind) was that the Christians' reaction was unusually meek. In other words, the news was what didn't happen rather than what did occur. (Actually, as far as I can tell from the story and from others I have read, there was nothing resembling an uproar, even a "little" one.)

Second, I have a strong suspicion that this copy editor fell into one of the classic errors of the trade. He or she thought of a cute play on words (using uproar to describe the reaction to a movie that prominently features a lion) and couldn't resist using it. I would applaud the subtlety of the play on words, if that is what it was. But in this case, the copy editor needed to resist the temptation to use the word uproar because it did not fit the facts.

Oh, well. At least the Christians didn't cause an uproar. Of course, it's possible that those who saw the film were 'lion' about their impressions. You never know.

"This task is appointed for you"

As I sit here this quiet Sunday afternoon, my heart feels like writing something, but my tired brain can't seem to get in gear.

So here's another installment in my "Lord of the Rings" appreciation posts. This snippet comes from the first book, The Fellowship of the Ring, from the very end of the chapter titled "The Council of Elrond." Frodo and his companions have reached the safety of the home of the elf lord Elrond, and have gathered with Gandalf and representatives of the races of men, dwarves, and elves to debate what is to be done with the One ring. After much consideration, Frodo volunteers to take the ring to Mordor, after which Elrond says a profound thing, again hinting at an unnamed providence governing the events of Middle Earth. The movie version of Fellowship used many lines from the book, but not these, and I regret that it did not. Enjoy.

No one answered. The noon-bell rang. Still no one spoke. Frodo glanced at all the faces, but they were not turned to him. All the Council sat with downcast eyes, as if in deep thought. A great dread fell on him, as if he was awaiting the pronouncement of some doom that he had long foreseen and vainly hoped might after all never be spoken. An overwhelming longing to rest and remain at peace by Bilbo's side in Rivendell filled all his heart. At last with an effort he spoke, and wondered to hear his own words, as if some other will was using his small voice.

"I will take the Ring," he said, "though I do not know the way."

Elrond raised his eyes and looked at him, and Frodo felt his heart pierced by the sudden keenness of the glance. "If I understand aright all that I have heard," he said, "I think this task is appointed for you, Frodo; and that if you do not find a way, no one will. This is the hour of the Shire-folk, when they arise from their quiet fields to shake the towers and counsels of the great. Who of all the Wise could have foreseen it? Of, if they are wise, why should they expect to know it, until the hour has struck?

"But it is a heavy burden. So heavy that none could lay it one another. I do not lay it on you. But if you take it freely, I will say that your choice is right; and though all the mighty elf-friends of old, Hador and Hurin, and Turin, and Beren himself were assembled together, your seat should be among them."

I like a great many things in this passage, and I know that if these lines had made it into the movie, I would have liked the cinematic character of Elrond much more than I did. The whole idea that the task is "appointed" for Frodo speaks of a providential will at work. The concept that an "hour" is appointed for the simple Shire folks to do great deeds echoes the Christian teaching of the dignity and worth of each human, no matter how small and weak. And the idea that the Wise could not have foreseen such a thing rebukes the haste with which we so often cast aside the weak and lowly, especially the unborn.

I am thankful that Tolkien was appointed to write "The Lord of the Rings."

Would Santa accept the deity of Christ?

To follow up on my wife's article urging Christians to forgo teaching their children about Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, etc., here's an interesting historical note about Santa's historical archetype, St. Nicholas. I ran across this at Gene Edward Veith's Cranach blog, a good read.

Rev. Scott Stiegemeyer imparts the delicious information that St. Nicholas, who would later become the model for Santa Claus, attended the Council of Nicea, which affirmed the deity of Christ. Not only that, he got so fed up at the heretic Arius that he went up and slapped him, for which he had to apologize.

We need to work that into our Christmas imagery: Santa Claus going around battling heretics who deny who Jesus is. And giving a gentle but heart-felt slap to people who take Christ out of Christmas. Department Store Santas quizzing children who sit on their laps about the Two Natures of Christ and giving clerks who say "Happy Holiday" a slap. Also teachers who forbid the singing of Christmas carols because they mention Jesus. And ministers who cancel Sunday church services that fall on Christmas day.

We will need songs ("Santa Claus is Coming to Slap"; "Frosty the Gnostic"; "Rudolph the Red Knows Jesus"). And Christmas specials ("How the Arian Stole Christmas").

There's not much I can add to that. Well said, Mr. Veith.

A "Lord of the Rings" appreciation (No. 1)

OK, I am now going to indulge myself, but I hope you'll be edified as I do.

With all the hype about the upcoming Narnia movie, I was reflecting recently about the hype that was going on four years ago, when Peter Jackson's adaptation of the first book of the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy, The Fellowship of the Ring, was about to hit theaters. I'm looking forward to seeing the Narnia movie, but I really bought into the hype for Fellowship and couldn't wait to see it. I have been a fan of Tolkien's trilogy for a long, long time and have probably read all three volumes at least a dozen times. Thankfully, the movies didn't disappoint. Yes, there were departures from the story in places, but I was able to forgive Jackson for that because I had a sense that he loved the material as I do and made his changes simply to adapt the material to a different medium.

But back to the books. . . . My regard for the trilogy is such that I like to take one or the other of the books off the shelf and open to a favorite passage here or there, places in the story where Tolkien's writing is especially appealing to me. This seems, to me, a little wierd because I feel as if I am using Tolkien in much the same way Christians use the Bible, and I certainly don't want to equate "The Lord of the Rings" with Scripture in any way.

Nevertheless, there are some portions of the trilogy that I simply treasure, and in memory of those bygone years of waiting for the next "Lord of the Rings" movie, I'd like to share a few of them with you throughout this month. If you have read the books, I'd be interested in knowing whether these passages move you as they move me. If you haven't read the books, I hope these tidbits will motivate you to take up and read.

Here's a passage from the first book's second chapter, "The Shadow of the Past." It's a long chapter in which Gandalf and Frodo have a very interesting conversation by which Tolkien provides a lot of crucial background info for his story. In this passage, Gandalf is telling Frodo how the One ring consumed the creature Gollum. At the end, there is an unmistakeable reference to an unnamed providence that is operating behind the events of the trilogy, a reference that actually made it into the movie (in Gandalf's conversation with Frodo in the mines of Moria). Enjoy!

"The thing was eating up his mind, of course, and the torment had become almost unbearable.

"All the 'great secrets' under the mountains had turned out to be just empty night; there was nothing more to find out, nothing worth doing, only nasty furtive eating and resentful remembering. He was altogether wretched. He hated the dark, and he hated light more: he hated everything, and the Ring most of all."

"What do you mean?" cried Frodo. "Surely the Ring was his precious and the only thing he cared for? But if he hated it, why didn't he get rid of it, or go away and leave it?"

You ought to begin to understand, Frodo, after all you have heard," said Gandalf. "He hated it and loved it, as he hated and loved himself. He could not get rid of it. He had no will left in the matter.

"A Ring of Power looks after itself, Frodo. It may slip off treacherously, but its keeper never abandons it. At most he plays with the idea of handing it on to some one else's care--and that only at an early stage, when it first begins to grip. But as far as I know Bilbo alone in history has ever gone beyond playing, and really done it. He needed all my help, too. And even so he would never have just forsaken it, or cast it aside. It was not Gollum, Frodo, but the Ring itself that decided things. The Ring left him."

"What, just in time to meet Bilbo?" said Frodo. "Wouldn't an orc have suited it better?"

"It is no laughing matter," said Gandalf. "Not for you. It was the strangest event in the whole history of the Ring so far: Bilbo's arrival just at that time, and putting his hand on it, blindly, in the dark.

"There was more than one power at work, Frodo. The Ring was trying to get back to its master. It had slipped from Isildur's hand and betrayed him; then when a chance came it caught poor Deagol, and he was murdered; and after that Gollum, and it had devoured him. It could make no further use of him: he was too small and mean; and as long as it stayed with him he would never leave his deep pool again. So now, when its master was awake once more and sending out his dark thought from Mirkwood, it abandoned Gollum. Only to be picked up by the most unlikely person imaginable: Bilbo from the Shire!

"Behind that there was something else at work, beyond any design of the Ring-maker. I can put it no plainer than by saying that Bilbo was meant to find the Ring, and not by its maker. In which case you also were meant to have it. And that may be an encouraging thought."

Happy holy days to you, too!

Have you been following the cultural debate about how we are to refer to the big event coming up on December 25? Alleged attempts to censor the word Christmas out of the American vocabulary seem to be cropping up everywhere. In Boston, the white spruce tree erected on the Boston Common was identified on the city's Web site as a "holiday tree." In Washington, House Speaker Dennis Hastert came out in favor of reverting from "holiday tree" back to "Christmas tree" as the name for the spruce on the Capitol grounds. And retailers have come under fire for advertising "holiday trees" and wishing shoppers "Happy holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas."

I have to say, I haven't been able to work up much outrage over these alleged assaults on Christianity. I guess I don't care very much what we call the celebration of Jesus' birth. Truth be told, since I'm a Protestant, the derivation of the word Christmas ("Christ's Mass") probably ought to offend me more than it does. But I actually find the greeting "Merry Christmas" more troublesome. Merriment just doesn't seem to be the proper emotion for the coming of the Lord of Glory. Joy, gratitude, and humble repentance would be more appropriate, if you ask me.

Some folks, however, are deeply offended that the word Christmas might be expunged. My local newspaper, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, reported on this controvery this morning, and it quoted Diane DeVore of Roswell, Ga., who said, "I am tired of the subtle and not so subtle ways that are being used to persecute Christians for their beliefs." My goodness, are we really ready to call this cultural shift "persecution"? What would our brothers and sisters in the many parts of the world where Christmas cannot be celebrated (much less named) say to that?

Of course, the end of the story is as silly as the beginning. As Bill Murchison pointed out in an excellent column on Townhall.com this morning, the substitution of "Happy holidays" for "Merry Christmas" still leaves secularists in a bind. Why? Because of the derivation of the word holidays ("holy days").

GtG

For the "Now I've seen it all" files

I ran across this news item this morning:

BERLIN (Reuters) - A German Protestant youth group has put together a 2006 calendar with 12 staged photos depicting erotic scenes from the Bible, including a bare-breasted Delilah cutting Samson's hair and a nude Eve offering an apple.

"There's a whole range of biblical scriptures simply bursting with eroticism," said Stefan Wiest, the 32-year-old photographer who took the titillating pictures.

Anne Rohmer, 21, poses on a doorstep in garters and stockings as the prostitute Rahab, who is mentioned in both New and Old Testaments. "We wanted to represent the Bible in a different way and to interest young people," she told Reuters.

"Anyway, it doesn't say anywhere in the Bible that you are forbidden to show yourself nude."

Bernd Grasser, pastor of the church in Nuremberg where the calendar is being sold, was enthusiastic about the project.

"It's just wonderful when teenagers commit themselves with their hair and their skin to the Bible," he said.

It's hard to know what to say to such nonsense. I'll grant that no one verse states, "Thou shalt not appear nude in calendar photos." But what of Philippians 4:8: "Finally, brethren, whatever things are true, whatever things are noble, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy--meditate on these things"? What of Psalm 101:3a: "I will set nothing wicked before my eyes"? What of 1 Timothy 2:9-10: "In like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works"? I think the Bible is clear that such behavior is not pleasing to our Lord.

Perhaps what saddens me most about this silly thing is the depiction of Rahab in the garb of her old profession--Rahab, in whose heart the sovereign Redeemer worked, so that she gave one of the most magnificent professions of faith in Scripture: "The Lord your God, He is God in heaven above and on earth beneath'" (Joshua 2:11). Christ died to pay for Rahab's sins, to cast them out of God' sight. Now we, the church, want to depict them.

It is interesting to see how often in the writings of the Old Testament prophets God speaks of exposing Israel's nakedness because of her harlotry. I'm not sure whether those passages ought to be taken literally or metaphorically, but now that we have the church, the Israel of God, exposing its nakedness voluntarily, I can't help wondering whether God's judgment is at work in our midst.

GtG

Guest blogger

Whew. It's been a crazy week, not because of the impending holidays, but simply because of a surplus of work. I'm grateful for it, but it has reduced the time I have available to think about posting something worthwhile.

Thankfully, I have options. Here's a piece my dear, wise wife wrote a few years ago and which will appear in our church newsletter this month.

I should add that I vividly remember a former colleague sharing with me that her daughter, having learned that there was no Santa Claus, asked, "Mom, is there really a God." So, no, this issue of teaching our kids cute untruths is not a trivial matter.

TRADITION OR TRUTH?

I urge parents and families to reflect on some holiday traditions and consider some changes. These changes may require some to break cherished traditions, but I’m convinced we must ask ourselves two questions: “What must I hold to most dearly, tradition or truth?” and “Is it my true desire to glorify God in all things?”

Many Christian homes through the years have celebrated holidays by sharing the traditions of the culture. More and more, our “Christian” celebrations look, taste, and smell just like everyone else’s. Our children put their teeth under pillows, hunt for eggs in the spring grass, and hang stockings on the mantle. In a world where Christians seem more and more to “blend in,” we must evaluate our practices and ask whether they are pleasing to God and whether they demonstrate the fullness of the Gospel to a watching world.

One area where tradition clearly presides over truth is in the practice of giving our children reasons to believe in mythical characters who do not exist. Children, especially very young ones, cannot easily discern between reality and fantasy. In their minds, the two are mixed together. They are totally reliant on adults to sort the real and the unreal, and help them know the truth.

How often have we as parents used truth to comfort a terrified child in the night? Have we not assured them that monsters do not live under their beds because monsters are not real? How many times have we listened to a child tell us about a nightmare so we could help him discern between what’s real and what’s not? One of our greatest responsibilities as parents is to help our children learn what’s true about themselves and their world. This responsibility is given to us from the Author of Truth. Why do we fear that reality will overwhelm or eradicate children’s imaginations? Should we not be more concerned that what’s false will cloud truth?

Many Christian parents find it “cute” to encourage belief in characters who are so clearly false to adults. They go to more extremes to convince their children of lies than to convince them of truth. Children lie awake at night wondering when the tooth fairy will arrive to take a lost tooth. Year after year, they leave cookies and milk for Santa, hoping to hear his reindeer on the roof or catch a glimpse of him sneaking into the house to leave gifts. How is God honored when children are more excited on Easter Sunday about a basket full of candy supposedly left by the Easter Bunny than they are about the empty grave and the living Savior?

Why do Christians not revolt against these truthless traditions? Why do our Christian radio stations and bookstores embrace these fantasies, and justify doing so as they sell us ideas and products that are clearly lies? Why do we listen and follow, instead of rejecting the lies and refusing to pass them on to our children? Why do we feel compelled to “shield” the child who believes in Santa or the Tooth Fairy from the truth? Should we not feel more compelled to tell and live out the truth? Jesus did not hesitate to reveal the lies of the culture He came to. He did not fear the hatred or the persecution. He did not hesitate to point out the hypocrisy of the traditions of men. Why do we?

Let’s ask ourselves whether practicing these traditions glorifies God. Do they demonstrate the Gospel to a watching world? We know the answer before the question is asked. They do not. Let’s look closer at some more reasons why.

Each of the mythical characters in these traditions is given credit for bringing things that clearly come from the one true God, who gives us all things. Is not a letter to Santa similar to a typical child’s prayer? Why do we encourage our children to pray to God night after night, but when it comes to Christmas gifts, we encourage them to write a letter to Santa for the desires of their hearts?

Each of these characters “work” through supernatural powers. They are attributed qualities that belong only to God. These include the abilities to be invisible, to be in many places at once, and to know whether we are being good or not. Did not the Romans and the Greeks give such powers to their pagan gods? Have we not encouraged our children to embrace modern idols, to expect something from someone other than God?

The most disturbing mythical character is Santa Claus. He’s a jolly elf with a kind face and a big heart, but has he not become the god of modern materialism? We may justify his “existence” by referring back to the godliness of his human counterpart, St. Nicholas. We may embrace him as a symbol of the spirit of Christmas, the example of giving. But why does the Christian need another example, another symbol, or another “spirit” when we have the true, living Holy Spirit of Christ? How is God honored if we hold up a “partner” to the Christ who has no equal?

Encouraging a belief in Santa Claus as an existing, godlike character is clearly against what the Bible teaches. In order to include Santa in the celebration of Christmas, lies must be spoken and believed. Jesus always spoke Truth. To give Santa the qualities of God is to make for our children an idol. To lead a child to believe that a fictional character brings toys and treats is to encourage her to worship and adore someone other than Jesus. Contrary to tradition, Santa is an idol, an icon of human selfishness, and a tool of commercialism. He is not a symbol of giving, and should not be presented to young children as such. God needs no such symbol. Santa does not encourage a young child to give. How many children who sit on Santa’s lap tell him what to bring someone else for Christmas?

And what about the effect of purposely misleading our children? How many of us still remember the disappointment, confusion, and gloom that settled into our hearts when we learned the truth that our parents had lied to us for so many years? Why do so many of us do the same to our children?

It’s past time for true Christians to take the unpopular stand and tell the truth to everyone about Santa, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, and every idol of our traditions. We should start with our own children, and I pray we’ll start now.

For His glory alone,

Kathy Bailey