Christmas?

By Roland Worth, Jr.

Sit down in a comfortable chair. Take two aspirin. Calm down. What I am about to say may upset and even anger you. However, it should not because it merely reflects the true facts of the matter. I am referring to Christmas. There is always a lot of talk this time of year about the need to “put Christ back into Christmas.” Frankly, we refuse to. We consider it a joyous secular holiday, a time for fun and games and to relax with close friends and family. But to put Christ into Christmas?

Few things could be more nonsensical. You see, to observe Christmas as a religious holiday is to act totally without scriptural authority. God considers the doing of religious acts that He has not authorized to be outright sin: Lev. 10:1-2 is one of the clearest passages proving that God works on this principle. Furthermore, the Bible condemns the observance of religious holidays that God has not authorized, “Ye observe days and months and times and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labor in vain” (Gal. 4:10-11). Religion has never been given authority to set up religious holidays. Men-yea, uninspired men-usurp the power that rightly belongs only to Jehovah in such matters.

Biblically speaking, there (1) is no command to observe Christ’s birth; (2) there is no example of it being observed; (3) there are no grounds on which to reasonably infer that it was observed by the early church. In short, there is no Divine endorsement for observing Christ’s birth. (Not to mention the “minor” problem that we can not be sure what day it was on or even what month or year it occurred!)

So, friend, enjoy the holiday. Rejoice in your prosperity and in the friends you have been blessed with. But if you wish to honor God on His terms (rather than on those that erring, sinful men invent) keep Christ out of your Christmas. He will be a lot happier about it. Season’s greetings.

Truth Magazine XXI: 49, p. 770
December 15, 1977

That’s A Good Question

By Larry Ray Hafley

Question:

From Kentucky: “I know that we are to put the Lord first in our giving, but does all our giving have to be put in the collection plate on Sunday morning? I ask this question because my parents are aged, and they do not have enough income to live on, and it is necessary for me to help them. Also, there are times when I would like to send money to evangelists that are in need that do not have regular support.

“Another thing I would like to know: I have a grocery. store and a job at the Post Office. Does my giving come before my operating expenses, or out of the profits of my business? It is necessary to have lights, telephone, fuel and employees in the business, and it has bothered me about my giving.”

Reply:

These questions are indicative of a sensitive conscience. They manifest an attitude that is set on pleasing the Lord. Our querist is apparently more interested in doing right than in pleasing self.

No, all our giving does not have to be put in the collection plate on Sunday morning (Rom. 12:13; Eph. 4:28). “Beloved, thou doest faithfully whatsoever thou doest to the brethren and to strangers; which have borne witness of thy charity before the church: whom if thou bring forward on their journey after a godly sort, thou shaft do well” (3 Jn. 5, 6). Here was charity over and above that which was placed in the store or treasury of the Lord’s day.

One must honor his father and mother. Part of this duty involves and includes physical sustenance (Matt. 15:3-9; Mk. 7:1-13). Thus, one must learn to show piety at home and to requite their parents, “for that is good and acceptable before God” (1 Tim. 5:4).

We are to give “as God . . .hath prospered” (1 Cor. 16:2). We are to maintain good works for necessary uses and to meet pressing needs (Titus 3:14). Funds required in the operation of the business are not prosperity. They are essential to the maintenance of the company. When Paul made tents (Acts 18:3), he was not prospered the amount used to purchase the goods with which to construct the tents. In the very nature of the case cited, one could not give that which is not actually his. The debts incurred, lights, heat, employees, and phone service, do not represent gain.

For what it is worth, we figure our contribution on our gross income, not on what is left over after all bills are met. I assume that most Christians do this. For example, if our wages are $XXX per week, gross salary, we have a set percentage of that which we have decided to contribute. We endeavor to meet this “purposed-in-our-heart percentage” regardless of the extra items that arise. Every saint must make his own decisions in matters of this kind. God has not bound precise levels. Finally, it is doubtful that our querist is in any danger in this area. With a tender regard for pleasing the Lord, he will, with mature reflection, give as God hath prospered.

Truth Magazine XXI: 49, p. 770
December 15, 1977

Luke 15: All were Lost

By Larry Ray Hafley

Luke 15 (please read it before you read this essay) is Jesus’ reply to the Pharisees and scribes. They attempted to smear Christ’s character by insinuating that the reason “This man receiveth sinners and eateth with them” was because He Himself was a sinner. In other words, “Birds of a feather flock together.” The Lord could not permit this slanderous innuendo to .remain unanswered. It would adversely affect His mission and ministry. If people thought He was a sinner, His words would fall on sealed ears and seared hearts. Therefore, Jesus justified His fellowship with sinners. He did it with three pointed parables.

(1) The Lost Sheep; Of course, one would seek a lost sheep rather than remain with 99 which needed no care. So, Jesus infers that His communion with sinners was the logical and proper course. He did not associate to participate in their sins but to help them. A shepherd does not go to get lost; he goes to retrieve that which is lost. Jesus received sinners for the same purpose, i.e., to bring them out of the wilderness of sin back into the fold of forgiveness.

(2) The Lost Coin: Obviously, one would search for a lost coin. Therefore, Jesus abode with sinners for the same end. Much effort is vividly described-“light a candle, sweep the house, and seek diligently till she find it.” Again, Jesus vindicates His reception of sinners. As one would search for a lost coin, so He would “seek diligently” for a lost sinner.

(3) The Lost Son: The wandering, squandering son has a similar thrust, but there is more. The younger son came to his senses and returned in remorse, regret and repentance. The elder son balked and murmured. He refused to welcome his lost brother and was envious of the rejoicing over him. The elder brother represents the Pharisees and scribes. The younger one is equal to the sinners. Instead of rejoicing over the sinner’s return, they were murmuring against Jesus. The story is tender, but the point is keen. They could not help but see the parallel which cast them in a disgusting light as the elder son. It was what they deserved for their snide aspersion against .Jesus.

There are a number of diverse elements in Luke 15. The three items that were lost were different in nature. One was an animal; one was an object; one was a human being. Though they differed in certain respects, this much was true of all: they were lost. Jesus solemnly set all three on the stage of His captivating narrative. We are bound by the simple truth of His words and are made happy, for as all were lost, so were all found.

The shepherd rejoiced; the woman rejoiced; the Father said, “Let us eat, and be merry.” Despair was transformed to joy; fear became merriment. The shepherd searched amid thickets and boulders; the woman looked high and low, and over and under; the Father stood many days on the porch of his plantation and scanned the crimson horizon for the return of his wayward boy. Then one day he saw the familiar outline, the form of his son silhouetted against the sky. Quickly he ran to embrace him with tears of forgiveness and happiness.

The Father knew his boy as fathers alone can. He was aware that his son was given to wasteful habits. As a man of means, he was in touch with the commerce and industry of other areas. He learned of the famine of that far away land whither his beloved boy had gone. His anxious heart ached for news, for some word, but it never came. He waited in vain, or so it seemed. Still, there was an undaunted gleam and glimmer of hope, and when he saw his son (“when he was yet a great way off” — that tells us how oft he had looked and longed for his return) he received him with open arms and a forgiving heart. Shoes were given to the bare feet, now weary from the many miles of trudging home. A ring, the family signet, was given to replace the one he had doubtless pawned in his destitution and desperation. This told him that he was accepted in the family. He need not plead as a slave but as a son. The fatted calf, the prized one, the one that was being groomed for a significant occasion was killed for food to provide nourishment to the starving frame of the boy who just a few weeks earlier was crying for “the husks that the swine did eat.” The best robe was brought forth and draped around his nearly naked body. There were hugs and kisses, “and they began to be merry.”

Luke 15 is always new, touching and true. All were lost; all were found. Our Father waits for our coming-to Him when we stray and stumble into sin. The robe, ring, and shoes of grace await our flight to the porch of the old home place where “we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need” (Heb.4:16).

Truth Magazine XXI: 48, pp. 765-766
December 8, 1977

Religious Pie Throwing

By Lewis Willis

An absolutely captivating article was published in the Amarillo Daily News, Jan. 6, 1977. The potential challenges the imagination. The preacher for the First Christian Church in West Salem, Illinois, is terribly concerned over the lack of involvement in religious activities by young people. So, he has decided he will activate these teenagers. The youth program he has started is called “the God Squad.” To promote interest in the program, he has announced that the age group who brings the most visitors to their meetings will be given the opportunity to throw pies in his face! Why ,m he is even going to bake the pies himself. “I’ll put on a shower cap and apron, kneel and take the pies in succession right in the face. Then I’ll clean up and go to the pulpit for evening service.” Randy Whitehead, the 23-year-old preacher, explained, “it’s a contest to get more contact with Christ.” My first thought was he will establish far more contact with pie crust than he will with Christ. Furthermore, it required fire for the baker to complete making of pie crust, which establishes a suitable preparatory relationship with eternity.

You know, the possibilities of this promotion are staggering! Bowling in the sanctuary aisle; shuffleboard in the classroom annex; ski jumping off the roof; buffalo hunts on the parking lot; archery practice at the occupied pulpit; air rifles vs. street lights; high wire walking from the chandeliers. Imagine the spiritual “interest” such stunts would generate! The eyes of some of the liberal preachers among us must be lighting up when reading about this. What an asset around which to build the “Bus Ministry,” A reward of a trip to the local McDonald’s could not hold a light to some of these promotions. Why we could even call attention to the Church (?)! We might even get the attention of the Associated Press, like this fellow did.

Imagine the impact we would make on the world. Those outside of the Lord would have a solid perception of the blood-bought body of the Savior! For the first time in the lives of many, the eternal purpose of God would be fully understood. Surely nothing could accomplish this any faster than or better than flinging a chocolate pie in the preacher’s face. “A pie in the face” is a well-chosen complement to the “Pie in the Sky” concepts of modern denominationalism, almost wholly given to the Social Gospel philosophy that is permeating our society. It has even invaded the ranks of God’s people, and its influence is spreading rapidly. There seems t be no area of New Testament Christianity so sacred as to preclude the invasion of innovative ideas such as that of the young Illinois preacher. IT seems trite to say such in our modern age but it would not be altogether out-of-order if he and others would study the implications of Romans 1:16. “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God unto salvation . . . .” It is with the powerful message of the Gospel that we must build, and, build we must! But, if we use humanistic schemes like pie throwing (shades of Laurel and Hardy), it is “we” who are building and not the Lord. David wrote: “Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it…” (Psa. 127:1). When the Lord determined to build His Church, He used the process of preaching the Gospel to build it (1 Cor. 1:21). It was effective then and it will be today.

One of the most alarming things about this entire concept is that it is occurring in a Christian Church. These are the folks who, in about 1850, decided to introduce the. “innocent” practice of mechanical instrumental music into the worship of the church. Look what they are doing now! It has frequently been said that when apostolic authority is abandoned and the gate to liberalism is opened, there is no way to close it. Satan then parades his wares into the apostate body to the cheers of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, they shall both fall in the ditch (Matt. 15:14). As this Christian Church preacher said, “The idea (of the pie throwing, lw) was enthusiastically endorsed by laughs and the stomping of feet.” Neither he nor his brethren could see well enough to detect the violation of the will and purpose of God which was being trampled upon. “I just can’t see anything wrong with it.” We’ve heard that before!

I am reminded of an interview Barbara Walters, the 5Million Dollar Woman of ABC News, conducted recently. She was talking with the woman who was ordained a priest in the Episcopal Church. After discussing the expected shock involved in making a woman an Episcopal priest, the lady made a most unusual remark. She announced to the world that she was “not very religious.” To which one must add a hearty “Amen.” But, from the news release referred to in this article, she apparently is not the only one suffering from this disease!

Truth Magazine XXI: 48, pp. 764-765
December 8, 1977