REACTING TO GOOD NEWS

It was one of the seven greatest events in world history. Therefore, it needed an announcement to interpret the event and that announcement came from an angel: "I bring you good news of great joy which will be for all the people; for today in the city of David there has been born for you a Savior, who is Christ the Lord." (Luke 2)

The long awaited Baby (the Seed of the woman as predicted in Gen. 3) is the Savior, the Messiah, and the Lord." And, as the angel declared, this is good news of great joy for all people. The shepherds knew that it was good news immediately; the Magi from the East did too. Their joyous reaction to the event was to travel over a thousand miles to celebrate it.

YET: JOY?

And how has fallen humanity reacted to it? Beginning with Herod and right down to our day, the reaction from the world system to the news has been to censor, and in some cases to declare the new illegal.

Saudi Arabia has banned the angelic news from all schools and hospitals.

N. Korea is so adamant against announcing the glad tidings that the government threatened to open artillery fire on a Christmas tree near its border in S. Korea, calling it "a tool of psychological warfare." (The government tolerates no holiday unless it's linked to the present leader or former leaders.)

Somalia makes an announcement yearly that celebrating Christmas is illegal and gives special training to its security force in order to put an end to all such celebrations.

Tajikistan, an Asian country, bans Christmas trees, giving gifts in the schools, fireworks, and even holiday meals. (!) A government's telling its citizens what they can't cook on one day of the year? Yes, that's how paranoid governments can be if they're totalitarian.

The government of Brunei will put you in jail for up to 5 years for celebrating Christmas. However, if you keep your celebration private and tell no Muslims about it, you may.

Albania is the only constitutional atheistic nation in the world. Naturally, Christmas finds no room in which to lodge in that nation. (I wonder why American atheists don't immigrate to that country. Sarcasm alert)

China bans Christmas and Christianity.

Cuba, just 90 miles from Florida, banned the celebration for 30 years, until 1998. Castro's reason was that people didn't need a holiday; they needed to work the sugar fields. What fun! 

THIS JUST IN FROM THE SHORES OF AMERICA

John W. Whitehead of The Rutherford Institute reflected on his 1950's childhood and our culture today. He wrote in "The Huffington Post;"

"But times have changed. Turmoil surrounds our schools. Police officers walk the hallways, and embattled teachers often act more like wardens than instructors. Sadly, the timeless celebration of Christmas seems to have been lost in the mix as well. Schools across the country avoid anything that alludes to the true meaning of Christmas, such as angels, the baby Jesus, stables and shepherds. Just consider some of the incidents that have taken place in recent years. 

 

"For example, a member of a parent/teacher organization at a Connecticut elementary school was in charge of decorating a large display case in the school’s entrance. For the upcoming December holidays, she was planning to put up a display called “Festival of Lights” and feature a display with a crèche for Christmas and a menorah and Star of David for Hanukkah, along with a document that explains the histories of both events. However, she was told by school officials that no religious objects could be used in the display.

"A kindergarten teacher in a Texas public school was informed that he could not mention the word “Christmas” or tell the historical Nativity story because someone in the district might sue. All other secular customs of the “winter holiday” were deemed to be okay, just not the religious symbols of Christianity. According to the school principal: “We cannot tie candy canes, trees, wreaths, Santa Claus, etc, as a religious symbol. What we can teach is the secular side of holidays. We can have the tree, candy cane, wreath, Santa Claus, etc, anything that is secular. No religious words can be attached. We cannot read aloud to the students any book pertaining to religious beliefs or happenings brought by you [the teacher] or the students. The student who brings a book can read/look at the book silently.”

"Another incident that highlights this extreme Christmas phobia involved a Michigan elementary school, where the principal issued a directive specifically forbidding references to God, Christianity or the birth of Jesus Christ. This is censorship, pure and simple.

"I have yet to understand how anyone can discuss the true — or even historical — meaning of Christmas without at least a reference to the baby Jesus. Surely something has gone wrong when America’s children are encouraged to celebrate the fictional Rudolph but are refused the opportunity to even mention Jesus, who was an actual, historical person. To claim that Christmas is something other than it is — a holiday with a religious foundation — is both dishonest and historically unsound."*

That's the news from around the world this Christmas season. But one question remains: What are you and I doing about and with the angel's announcement? Is our reaction as the shepherds' (evangelistic) or that of the Magi (worship)?

Think about it.

____________________________________________________________________________
For a complete discussion of the legal Do's and Dont's of Christmas published by The Rutherford Institute, see their "Twelve Laws of Christmas.

LEARNING FROM CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS III

The Hitchens brothers are a study in contrasts. Both Christopher and Peter are atheists, but Peter defects from that faith and becomes a Christian. A factor in his desertion was the attitude of Christopher who was angry, belligerent, and pugnacious. That helped start his brother questioning--Is that what atheism produces--hostility toward most things and most people? Whatever he saw in his brother, it wasn't appealing. Peter didn't want to wind up that way.

THE CONTRAST

Let's contrast that with what the Christian is to show: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. That's what Peter wanted to see. Looking at Paul's command to us, we see something else: "make it your ambition to lead a quiet life and attend to your own business." There was a restlessness about his brother Christopher; he was always upset about something, always attacking something or someone. That got old and ugly over time for Peter. 

PETER'S ATHEISM BECOMES OFFICIAL

But in his younger day, Peter was as bellicose as his brother: when he was still in boarding school at the age of 15, he chose to make his rebellion against Christianity and all of the conventions of his upbringing official by the ceremonial burning of his Bible – a gift from his parents - in the school yard.

He said, "I was sure that we, and our civilization, had grown out of the nursery myths of God, angels and Heaven."

After burning the Book, he intentionally began to do the things he had always been instructed were wrong: using foul language, mocking the weak, lying, stealing, using drugs, and betraying friends and family members. Peter and Christopher were two proverbial peas in the proverbial pod.

WAIT! THAT PICTURE!

It was staring at a picture– Rogier van der Weyden’s "Last Judgment" – that Hitchens felt a sudden and true conviction. Seeing the naked figures as they fled the fires of hell, all of his intentional rebellion and misdeeds came back to his mind, and with them, the realization that his life was a testament to the truth found in the painting: that misdeeds required justice, and that if anyone required saving from this justice, it was he. (From "Christianity Today")

Here's how Peter described the day he saw hell while on a cycling trip to Burgundy: I saw Rogier van der Weyden's 15th-century 'Last Judgment:' I had scoffed at its mention in the guidebook, but now I gaped, my mouth actually hanging open, at the naked figures fleeing towards the pit of hell. I had a sudden strong sense of religion being a thing of the present day, not imprisoned under thick layers of time. My large catalogue of misdeeds replayed themselves rapidly in my head. I had absolutely no doubt that I was among the damned, if there were any damned. Van der Weyden was still earning his fee, nearly 500 years after his death.”

This reminds us of Paul's evangelistic message to the Athenian intellectuals on Mars Hill when he spoke to them about Christ and the Judgement to come: "God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.” (Acts 17:30-31) Not only that text, but also Revelation 20:11-15 declares the coming Judgment. Jesus Himself spoke of it: "Nevertheless I say to you that it will be more tolerable  for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for you.” The atheist was running scared.


That old, old painting put the fear of God into Peter Hitchens. He came back to the faith of his childhood; no longer was it a myth unsuitable for the age of jet engines and penicillin. The Bible-burning prodigal had come home.

THE CONCLUSION

What can we learn from Christopher (and Peter)? A combative, argumentative, stance can be a turn-off, just as Christopher's was to his brother. Dr. Andy Woods has a wise admonition for us: "If you clash with everybody everywhere you go, you're not growing in Christ."

We also see that atheism can produce an I'll-show-you-attitude, as Peter delighted in breaking all the moral principles he learned from his parents and even burning the gift from them, not in private, but publicly. That attitude too, becomes unattractive after awhile. Is a life of betraying friends and family something to be admired? Is mocking the weak winsome?

On December 15, 2011, death came for Christopher. Did he come to faith? As far as we know, no, he did not.

Christopher (left) and Peter Hitchens

LEARNING FROM CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS PART II

Christopher Hitchens, angry atheist, author, lecturer, and debater is dying of cancer. During that time, though knowing his condition, he still debates with those defending Christianity in public forums and still attacks anything and everything he deems Christian.

After the debates, as the combatants often do, Christopher and his opponent go out to eat and discuss the night's events as well as the various issues over which they've argued. Over just such a dinner, Hitchens asks Larry Taunton, his opponent of the earlier debate that night, "Why do you think I don't believe?"

That's quite a question, isn't it?

THE DILEMMA

Taunton is faced with a dilemma. "Should I tell him the truth? Should I flatter him? Should I tell him that I don't know? Or, should I tell him the truth?" Taunton chose to tell him the truth: First, he asks Hitchens, "Do you really want to know?" Hitchens says, "Yes, I do." Taunton then says, "[It's because] the cost of your conversion is one you're unwilling to pay as a world-famous atheist."

Hitchens' conversion, were it to occur, would be international news. He would lose the applause of the world, that's for sure. His friendships with the literati and the glitterati would evaporate; he'd be scorned, a pariah in the eyes of the elite who celebrate him. It's hard for us to admit, "I've been wrong all my life." The Apostle Paul had to do that after his Damascus road meeting with the risen Christ.

CARING MORE

Those would be hard words to say to Christopher, so harsh that Hitchens might just stand up and stalk away. But Christopher Hitchens didn't because he knew one thing about Larry Taunton: Taunton cared about him. He was a Christian different from most of those Christopher had met on the debate circuit or anywhere else: Larry Taunton cared more about winning Christopher than he did about winning any debate.

Such a quality is rare in the theological world because there's no more heady wine in that world than being right. At all costs, being right is the Holy Grail. It's all about winning the argument, carrying the day on the field of the verbal battle. It's about shutting down the other person, getting him flustered, angry, and mute. In that world, it's all about the paraphrased Dutch proverb, "Winning isn't everything, but it's way ahead of whatever is in second place."

But when is making someone angry, the goal of evangelism? Paul said the goal was to be clear and to persuade. That eliminates the goal of making someone angry. Shutting someone down isn't to be an end in itself because the goal is to bring Christ to them, but if, along the way, they become offended, so be it, but their offended state isn't our final goal.

There's a text which comes into play in the Hitchens/Taunton relationship, one we've ignored. It's from Proverbs: "When a man’s ways are pleasing to the Lord, He makes even his enemies to be at peace with him." (16:7) Hitchens didn't stalk away because he respected Taunton.

Hitchens, the Englishman, said of Taunton, "If everyone in the United States had the same qualities of loyalty and care and concern for others that Larry Taunton had, we’d be living in a much better society than we do.” That's an example of Prov. 16:7.

What can we learn from the atheist Hitchens? Do that which impressed him, that which caused him to listen to the gospel: speak the truth with courage, from a background of love. That sounds like Eph. 4:15.

After all the debates and after dinner conversations with Christians, after hearing his brother talk about Christ and Him crucified, did Christopher Hitchens become, like his brother Peter, an atheist turned Christian?

TO BE CONTINUED

LEARNING FROM CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS

There are these two brothers, Christopher and Peter. Both are atheists, but one of them, Peter, becomes a Christian. (It's odd that his parents named his brother Christopher. It means, "Christ bearer," of a Latin origin.) His life was one far from bearing Christ's name. He spent his adult life living like the Roman Emperor Julian who tried the impossible--to destroy Christianity.

What started Peter to rethinking atheism were many things, but one thing was his brother's rage and anger, sometimes a characteristic of atheists. The relationship between the two brothers makes for an interesting story, one throbbing with pathos. But that's another story, one that's the subject of a book written by Peter.

ANOTHER STORY

What is the story here is what we Christians can learn from Christopher, learn, from him instead of dismissing him because God certainly didn't dismiss him, but drew him, like all men, to Himself. But that drawing doesn't guarantee salvation--Christopher, like all of us, was given a free will. He could reject God's drawing.

What Christopher did with his life was to spend it writing, lecturing, and debating his adopted cause. He often debated his brother in public forums, but he debated others as well, and one of those was a professor named John Lennox.

In the debate world, the two debaters will square off in the public arena, and have at each other, engaging in verbal pugilism for an hour or so. Forget our presidential debates, they aren't really debates, but press conferences during which each candidate tries to come up with a one-liner (a zinger) that will win the day.

After the debate, the two combatants will often have dinner together and discuss various issues regarding their differences. They don't usually engage in a heated diatribe, but discuss things man-to-man over whatever food they've ordered.

THE DINNER

Anyway, Christopher Hitchens and John Lennox were doing just that, along with another man, Larry Taunton, who often debated Hitchens. They were having a conversation after midnight at a restaurant and from that dinner we can learn something valuable.

During the earlier debate, Hitchens had done what he always did, express his rage against Roman Catholicism and the Greek and Russian Orthodox Churches. He inveighed against them as oppressive political machines, interested only in power, and responsible for many evils throughout the ages.

Earlier that evening, Lennox and Hitchens had debated one another in front of an audience of college students. Now, appropriately, the debate continued offstage.

“Christopher, do you really think that you're undermining our position with references to stuff like that?” Lennox asked. 

He went on to tell Hitchens that he agreed with him and that he could add stories to those Hitchens had told about the dark history of the three entities. He said, "I don’t doubt that the stories are true. I could add more stories of my own to the ones you have told. But they are not the actions of genuine Christians.” Hitchens asked, incredulously,  “You don’t consider the Orthodox Church Christian?” Hitchens seemed confident in the response he would get. 

Taunton then entered the conversation: “Well, it’s not about this or that denomination or what we consider Christian or not Christian,” he said. “It’s really a question of ‘What does the Bible say?'"

SHOCK

Taunton explains what happened next:

"At this, Hitchens sat up, totally astonished. Apparently, this was not the answer he expected. He turned to Lennox and gestured at me. “Do you agree with that, Professor?” “I do,” Lennox declared. “Christ forbade the very actions you are calling ‘Christian’! Christ was even more resolute in His opposition to hypocrisy, exploitation, and the use of violence to promote His message than you are, Christopher.” 

Lennox reached for his water glass, but it was empty. “Perhaps you should be one of his followers?” he added, putting the glass down."

So, there's one thing we can learn: Never assume what a person knows or doesn't know. In all of Hitchens' debates and travels, he'd never heard and understood that Roman Catholicism, the Russian and Greek Orthodox have used tactics and held doctrines that Christ Himself condemned. 

Never assume that a person knows what grace means. Never assume that a person knows what repent means. Never assume that a person knows what the finished work of Christ means. Never assume that a person knows what faith means. Never assume a person knows what John 3:16 means. (One man I talked to thought the words said, "John Three Colon One Six." He had no idea that they had reference to a text in the Bible in the third chapter of the Gospel of John.

This fact was brought home to me when a lady who had listened faithfully to my exposition of the book of Galatians and my hundreds of references to the Mosaic Law was talking with me after our last study of the book. On the last night, after our Bible study, she thanked me for the study. I thanked her and mentioned something about how we were free from the Law of Moses. It was then that she got a quizzical look on her face and said, "You mean Moses, Moses?" I answered, "Yes, of course." 

She told me that whenever I referred to the Mosaic Law in our study, that I was talking about a mosaic of laws from all over the ancient world, laws having nothing to do with the Moses who led Israel out of Egypt. So much for my pedagogical skills.  My problem was assuming that everybody knew what the two words, "Mosaic Law" meant. She had sat there in the auditorium for thee months not really understanding much of what I was talking about. Not her fault, but mine.

Anyway, what makes this account of that dinner conversation more poignant is that at the time, Christopher Hitchens was dying of cancer. 

Did he trust Christ as Savior?

TO BE CONTINUED

NEVER LET THEM SEE YOU SWEAT?

"Never let them see you sweat."

That was the tag line for an advertisement, unfortunately one which we often adopt as our motto of the Christian life and thereby try live the life of the impervious. The life of the impervious is a pretend life  which is a phony life of "never let them see you sweat." It's a life of pretend, a life of the pretense of being invulnerable to the vicissitudes of life.

Sometimes those in sales who are not yet successful are told by their coaches, "Fake it 'til you make it," which means, "Appear to be successful and let everyone know that things are great beyond belief for you in spite of the fact that you're struggling, failing, and suffering the disappointment of 'No sale" after another, one rejection after another.

Would you be surprised if you caught Paul crying? He cried. At his last meeting with the elders of the Ephesian church, looking back, he said about himself, "[S]erving the Lord with all humility and with tears and with trials which came upon me [l]through the plots of the Jews . . ." The machinations of the enemies of the gospel caused Paul such hardship, such suffering, and such grief, he was brought to tears. He pulled back the curtain on his life and he let us see him sweat. 

Then there came the time to say good-bye for what the elders and Paul knew would be the last time and Luke records, "When he had said these things, he knelt down and prayed with them all. And they began to weep aloud and embraced Paul, and repeatedly kissed him, grieving especially over the word which he had spoken, that they would not see his face again." That's hard. 

The paragraph throbs with emotion. These weren't men pretending that all was as they wanted it to be. Luke lets us see them sweat. 

We turn to II Timothy and we find Timothy, Paul's legate to a church in the ancient world to be timid, fearful, and sick at times. His fear was so evident that Paul wrote to Timothy telling him that fear is no excuse for not serving the Lord. We know how Timothy felt--serving the Lord without pulling our punches is hard in a fallen world. 

It's difficult to tell a person that he's a sinner, separated from God, and there's nothing, no work, he can do to right his immoral ship. It's hard to tell him what the gospel is not: it's not church membership, baptism, or even what his parents believed. it's hard to face the wrath of those offended by the gospel. Losing friends and family over the gospel is hard and we hate it with a passion; we shouldn't pretend that it's easy to deal with. 

Listen to Paul as he writes to Timothy: "I thank God, whom I serve with a clear conscience the way my forefathers did, as I constantly remember you in my prayers night and day, 4longing to see you, even as I recall your tears, so that I may be filled with joy. The life of the Christian who is off the bench and into the arena knows that it's that hard, hard to the point of crying.

In our quest to never let them see us sweat, we pretend that we have no regrets, no problems, no struggles. And more than that, we pretend we have no tears. We act as if we have arrived and nothing bothers us, when even Paul said that he hadn't "arrived." We want to appear as Mary Poppins whom we might paraphrase: practically impervious in every way. Bullet proof to the buffetings of time and tide. 

The non-Christian can see through our facade in a New York minute. He knows life isn't as the prosperity preachers pretend that it is, and he turns from the phony, the plastic man, the hollow man. He recognizes the superficial when he sees it. 

But the shortest verse in the Bible shows us that Jesus Himself cried at the graveside of Lazarus. 

There are those who, like Job's friends, tell us to "Buck up" when we're hurt Then they throw a verse at us. But there's One who's compassionate toward us. as we see in Psalm 56:8: "Put my tears in Your bottle. Are they not in Your book?" God notes the hairs on our head (Matt. 10:30;) He considers our frame that we are but dust (Ps. 103:14).

When we turn to the psalmists we see emotion, not emotionalism, of those believers who are crying out to God in their sufferings because the slings and arrows of those arrayed against them and they hurt.

Things are difficult in a fallen world for those seeking to live the Christ life, we don't pretend they aren't. To pretend we're bullet proof to the hurts life brings ignores the fact that, at times, tears are appropriate.

We have God's word that all things are working together for good, but while they're working, we hurt, and God notices and God cares, and God provides.