In A Visit to Vanity Fair, Alan Jacobs makes an interesting observation about interpreting Matthew 18:1-4. In this passage, Jesus says, “I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” Jacobs points out that a common understanding of this verse is that we are suppose to have a child-like faith. He believes this interpretation ignores the immediate context of the verse which which is focused on humility. And Jacob does not think this means having the humility of a child but suggests that it means considering oneself to have the worldly status of a child. He goes on to say that children are not very humble by nature and that this was the normal view of biblical commentators down through the ages. The status interpretation also fits well with the notion of the first shall be last and the last shall be first.

I noticed something as I was looking through the historic creeds and confessions of Protestant Christianity. Somewhere along the line God lost his place as the first article and was replaced by the Bible. (Compare the Belgic Confession with the current Baptist Faith and Message for an example.) I think there is some significance to this, but I am not exactly sure what it is.

I submit an interesting etymological tidbit for your contemplation: the word heretic has its roots in the Greek word haireô which means to choose.

During the Eighty Years' War, the city of Ostend had a rough time of it. It was a Protestant city surrounded by Catholic territory and the armies of Charles V (Holy Roman Emperor, King of Spain, yada, yada). The other Dutch cities could not provide support due to their own wartime struggles. The obvious answer was to write to the Dutch immigrant community in England for food and soldiers. It didn't take too long for two hundred men to show up. The food was another story. Their English supporters sent a ship full of grain and English beer. Unfortunately, the ship was intercepted by pirates supported by their enemies. Major disappointment.

Near the end of the sixteenth century, a Puritan preacher described starching your clothes this way:

“that most devilish device of Starch...a sin so abominable that it doth cry so loudly in the Lord's ears for vengeance”

This quote only makes sense in its context. Famines and general food shortages were very common in this time period. This was due to the enormous population growth all over Europe, the lack of commercial farming, dependence on a single crop (grain - especially wheat), and the many wars. It has been estimated that a person experienced one famine on average in a lifetime. And these were boil leather or chase down the cats in the street sort of famines. This left people very anxious about the availability of food. In England bakers would be put in the stocks for selling bread below the specified weight. Given that starch was derived from wheat, the preacher's fury is a little more understandable.

I just finished reading Jack, a biography of C.S. Lewis by George Sayer. Early in his career at Oxford, Lewis was studying the New Testament in the original Greek (he was either an atheist or deist then). One of the aspects of the gospels that convinced him that they were historical rather than legend was their unimaginative literary style. They did not read like the myths and legends that Lewis had studied so much in his academic work.

Car makers have made great improvements in preventing car thefts. My car key has an electronic tag embedded within it. The car is not suppose to start unless it can talk to that tag so the key has to at least be in the car. This makes the the car extremely difficult to hot wire. But there is an unintended consequence to this advancement in security — car thieves are starting to break into people's homes to steal the car keys.

I have been reading a history book focused on the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. It had an example of a similar unintended consequence to a security measure. With the use of canons, castle and city walls did not provide as much protection during sieges as they formerly did. An architectural response was to build large earthen bulwarks around the walls to absorb the shot and add bastions to provide better offensive positions for the defenders. The manning of the bastions required many more soldiers to be resident in the cities. This changed the strategy of advancing armies. Previously, they might have passed by a well-fortified city since it did not present a threat to the army. Now they tended to set siege to these cities. Otherwise, they were leaving a large military force behind them that could attack their vulnerable rear.

I ran across a list of books banned during the 2004-2005 school year. A lot of them didn't surprise me. You had the typical agenda books like George Has One Dad and Fourteen Mommies or The Attack of the Evil Split Infinitives, the books that use racial language that was acceptable back in the 1800's like The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn or To Kill a Mockingbird, and then those books that are probably a little inappropriate for elementary school libraries like Playboy: A Pictorial History.

One book on the list that caught my eye was The Giver. It's by Lois Lowry and is a dystopia novel — sort of a Brave New World for kids. It won a Newberry Medal in fact. I had read it a few years back and thought it was a really good book. It turns out that it is one of the most frequently banned books in the United States. I looked around for the reasons and found some really great quotes by the banning proponents such as these three:

“This book is negative. I read it. I don't see the academic value in it. Everything presented to the kids should be positive or historical, not negative.”

“It should be seen as a criminal act for this book to be presented for or made required reading for anyone under the age of twenty — thirty would be even better...”

“In reality it is being used to prepare children — not yet able to comprehend the nature of life — for ... an age when one is killed and disposed of like garbage for being the smaller of two identical twins.”

Of course, the whole message of the book is exactly the opposite of that last quote. The amazon page for the book lists over two thousand reviews so it has certainly generated quite a reaction (though many appear to be posted by students who have been forced to write a review by their teacher). If you're waiting for a movie of it to come out rather than read the book, you're in luck. It looks like Walden Media (the Narnia guys) will be producing a movie version. If you're still wondering what happened to Jonas, Lowry caved in and wrote a sequel.

I'll leave you with my favorite review from the Amazon site:

“It is about a kid named Jonas and an old guy who gives Jonas bad memories. The ending is so weird. The book makes you think too hard. It is bad.”

I wish I had written down all the odd or funny things I have heard described by the adjective 'biblical'. I'm sure that I would have a long list by now. I was reminded of this the other day when I saw an add for "a Biblical way to deal with the health care crisis" in a magazine. It was paid for by a pseudo-insurance company. These types of organizations distribute the health care cost risk over those enrolled like a insurance company but are not regulated and do not keep money on reserve to pay claims. Instead, the monthly fee of the enrollees is paid out to those who have health needs. I went to this particular organization's web site to see why this was a biblical approach to health care. The best that I found was a single verse (Galatians 6:2) used out of context to say that Christians should help take care of each other's needs. When I dug a little deeper I even found policies that seemed to directly contradict their supporting verse.

Saying that something is biblical is a very strong claim to conservative evangelicals. The train of logic goes something like this: God is perfect, the Bible is God's Word, the Bible should then be used as the ultimate judge of truth. This means there is no stronger appeal than to the Bible. Since truth is exclusive that also means any other position is incorrect if you can show that yours is biblical. Of course, the Bible is not as clear as "Do not murder" in most places. You have a lot of narratives and poetry. Interpretation can be tricky on those types of passages. Even with law or doctrine it is hard to go from general principles to specific applications.

This does not prevent people from claiming that something is biblical without much evidence. It's not rare to see this type of claim based on a wooden, literal interpretation or a narrative detail. Verses pulled out of context are also common. Sometimes an idea that just seems reasonable is called biblical. We had a case like that recently in our church. A decision was made to change the process for nominating potential deacons. Someone said the process should be made more biblical. Of course, the Bible never gives a framework for nominating deacons. Rather, it gives a list of qualifications. I think what he really should have said was that he intends to make the process more democratic but that would not sound very spiritual.

I recently purchased my first new car. This has opened up a new world of technology to me. The car tells me when to change the oil. It automatically turns on my headlights when it gets dark. The car also came with one of those keychain fobs that locks/unlocks the doors. Unfortunately, I am discovering that the front door of our house does not respond to the keyless remote no matter how many times I try.

This will be the last post about Spain (at least I think it will be). On the way back from Seville, we flew into London before continuing on to Baltimore. In the London Heathrow Airport, I was “randomly selected” twice for a more invasive search. This was not based on any information on my ticket, but how I looked (or I guess it could have actually been random). Both times I was pulled out of line - once for a full pat down and the other time to do a complete search through my carry-on. For the full pat down, they were selecting one person out of the two security lines and the process took a few minutes. I am guessing that they were selecting 1 out of every 100 people. The carry-on search occurred as we were moving down the walkway to board the plane. It was a Boeing 767 with two aisles so the boarding process was pretty quick. Let's assume there were 4 people selected so the odds of my selection were 1 in 50. That means the overall odds of my double selection were 1 in 5,000 or 0.02 percent. My guess is that I looked like the kind of guy who would not raise a fuss if delayed for a few minutes.

Q. So what is Christmas all about?
A. The best way of answering this is by asking which Christmas. There are really two different holidays. There is the secular Christmas with its focus on family gatherings, gifts, and food. Then there is the religious holiday that involves a church service (often on Christmas Eve), nativity scenes, and religious Christmas carols. There is some overlap between the two, but the secular one is the dominant one in the United States. The number of churches that closed their doors on Christmas Sunday this past year is fairly conclusive evidence of this.

Q. What about making Macy's use "Merry Christmas" rather than "Happy Holidays"?
A. Well, how much religious meaning can you really attach to those words given the source? I think the pressure behind this is a result of Christians (especially the Religious Right) not realizing that there are two different holidays that happen to share a name and a date - or at least they disagree with this idea. They probably assume Christmas has always been celebrated this way.

Q. Let's get back to the religious Christmas. Why three kings?
A. Matthew mentions magi (transliterated from the Greek). The magi could have been priests, astrologers or magicians. The Greek lexicon does not support the use of kings. Matthew does not mention how many magi showed up. The traditional number oscillated for several hundred years before settling at three. This is probably due to there being three gifts. It is also possible that Psalm 72:10 was applied to the magi - thus the usage of kings and perhaps the number three.

Q. Isn't it odd how little attention the birth of Jesus receives in the Bible?
A. Only Matthew and Luke mention it of the four gospels. Given the importance of his crucifixion and resurrection, it's not surprising that his birth did not receive as much coverage. This is just one good reason why Easter should be given much greater emphasis in the Church.

Q. Speaking of Easter, I heard..
A. Oh no, let's not pursue that right now.

Q. We need to put 'Christ' back in CHRISTmas!
A. That is not a question. How about putting 'mass' back in while you are at it? In Old English it was Cristes Maesse. In Middle English it was Christemasse and that eventually got shortened to Christmas. So literally, the name comes from Christ's Mass.

Q. And isn't it terrible that people use that generic greeting, happy holidays?
A. Well, Christmas is a holy day so I suppose it's not incorrect to say that. The Old English is haligdæg. This is an example of why etymology cannot always be trusted for word definitions. Religious pluralism is difficult to handle if you are used to homogeneity.

Q. How come I never hear about Christmas in a Jane Austen novel or other books from that period?
A. That is a really good question. Maybe Michaelmas got all the attention back then?

Q. Has celebrating Jesus's birth always been important in Christianity?
A. No. Origen thought only wicked people celebrated birthdays. At least he cited that all the biblical examples aren't too great - just ask John the Baptist. I really wouldn't recommend Origen's hermeneutical approach here though. Anyway, there is no evidence of a commemoration until the fourth century. The Puritans even banned Christmas for awhile. In many cultures (especially in the Christian East), Christmas is a minor event compared to the Epiphany. In the United States, it is the number one event, overshadowing even Easter...but that is because retailers figured out in the 19th century that they could make a lot of money off Christmas.

Q. I like receiving gifts!
A. Doesn't everyone...the history of gift giving at Christmas time is a varied one. Different cultures give it differing priorities, exchange the gifts at different times or give them to different groups of people (children versus adults for example). Gift giving was not important in the early history of the United States, especially in New England given its Puritan background. From my reading, it does not appear like it was that important in England either (Christmas is for wassailing!). The different waves of immigration from various parts of Europe influenced the celebration of Christmas in the US. More than anything, though, it was the industrial revolution and the creation of a middle class. People now had money to spend on luxuries. They were reading (idealized) stories of how other people celebrated Christmas. The gift giving date moved away from the twelfth day of Christmas or New Year's Eve to Christmas Day. No longer were handmade gifts acceptable. The retailers figured out what they could do with Christmas and by the late 1800's and early 1900's you have a commercially driven holiday. If you want to read more, you could look here, here, or here.

Q. Was Jesus born on December 25?
A. No. Well, I suppose there is a 1 in 365 chance.

Q. So why do we celebrate his birth on the 25th?
A. First, we need to define "we" since some, like Armenian Christians (January 6), celebrate on a different day. The most common theory is that this day was chosen to take the place of a pagan festival. The minority opinion is that the leaders of the church calculated the date based on some less than reliable information. Both groups use questionable evidence when building their cases and then conveniently forget that when they reach their definitive conclusion. For more information, you can read this.

Q. Are we worshipping a pagan god then?
A. Even if we assume the majority opinion is correct, modern Christians would still not be worshiping a pagan deity by celebrating Christmas. Borrowing a tradition (or in this case, a date) does not imply that any of the baggage comes along with it. Drinking tunes were used as hymn tunes. John borrowed some Greek philosophy when he used the term logos. Augustine has that great quote about plundering the Egyptians, too.

Q. Isn't it horrible how people abbreviate Christmas as Xmas?
A. Actually, no. Using the Greek letter chi to stand for Christ has a long history (chi is the first letter of Christ in Greek). In fact, in some New Testament texts abbreviations are used to set certain words apart as holy - sort of like the Israelites treating God's name differently. I suppose some people do mean it as a slight and that usage is unfortunate.

There are two main competing theories on why December 25 was selected as Christmas Day by the Western church. The dominant theory is that as Christianity extended its religious supremacy it co-opted existing pagan festivals and customs to ease the transition. The other hypothesis is that the Church calculated the date using some traditional assumptions. Neither theory provides a definitive explanation for the date selected.

The pagan festival that occurred on December 25 in the Roman world was called dies natalis solis invicti or birthday of the invincible sun. The Julian calendar was in use at this point in time so December 25 was the winter solstice. While solar worship has a long history in many cultures, this particular feast did not become prominent until the emperor Aurelian (ruled 270-275 CE). The empire was struggling in the third century. There were both external threats and internal divisions (over thirty emperors over fifty years). Historians theorize that Aurelian sought to unify the empire under a single religion and chose this particular sun god - Sol Invictus. A temple was dedicated to this god by Aurelian on December 25, 274. This is considered to be the high point for worship of this god. Only fifty years later, Constantine was providing official support to Christianity.

The theory is that the Christian Church selected December 25 as the birth day of Christ to take advantage of the already established festival - or at least to serve as a distraction. This would be similar to the harvest festivals that many American evangelical churches sponsor in order to compete against Halloween. There is not any direct evidence for this theory, but it is plausible given the number of pagan customs accepted by the church for its festivals (Christmas trees, Easter eggs, etc.).