Thank you Paul (and any helpers you may have had) for another nicely decorated tree. To check back on your other Christmas trees, click here

All aboard! Next stop… Christmas! I have heard complaints in Christian circles that the secular world is taking over our festival and trashing it with consumerism, jingoism, greed, selfish excesses and all those other despicable things that are so unfortunately unChristian. I have heard we should claim it back and push “the reason for the season” on to the consciousness of folk instead. I wonder how many know that Christmas as a festival did not begin back there with the babe in the manger, but was celebrated on December 25th only since AD 354, replacing an earlier date of January 6th. Christians had by then appropriated pagan festivals and traditions of the season, many that were practiced in parts of the Middle East and Europe, as a means of stamping them out. There were mid-winter festivals in ancient Babylon and Egypt, Germanic fertility festivals, the celebration of the birth of the ancient sun-god Attis in Phrygia, of the birth of the Persian sun-god, Mithras, and Saturnalia, the festival dedicated to Saturn, the god of peace and plenty. In Scandinavia there was Yule. Celtic culture of the British Isles added a tradition involving mistletoe and holly. Italy added the tradition of re-enacting the birth of Christ with the construction of scenes of the nativity. The saint’s day dedicated to Saint Nicholas occurred on December 6th, he being the forerunner of Santa Claus. The earliest English reference to December 25th as Christmas Day did not come until 1043. When Oliver Cromwell and his Puritan forces took over England in 1645, they vowed to rid England of decadence and, as part of their effort they cancelled Christmas. By popular demand, Charles II was restored to the throne and, with him came the return of the popular holiday. In America the pilgrims, English separatists that came to America in 1620, were even more orthodox in their Puritan beliefs than Cromwell and Christmas was not considered a holiday. The celebration of Christmas was actually outlawed in Boston from 1659 to 1681 with anyone exhibiting the Christmas spirit being fined five shillings.

So what was that about reclaiming Christmas for the celebration of the birth of the Christ child? I’m afraid we share it with other traditions anyway. So a mixed bag has become Christmas, but it is still a very worthy “reason for the season” to consider the birth of Jesus - even although that was most unlikely to have been on December 25th - and celebrate anyway.

The Month Before Christmas
(Anonymous)

‘Twas the month before Christmas
when all through our land,
Not a Christian was praying nor taking a stand.
Why the PC Police had taken away,
The reason for Christmas -
no one could say.
The children were told by their schools not to sing,
About Shepherds and Wise Men and Angels and things.
It might hurt people’s feelings,
the teachers would say
December 25th is just a ” Holiday “.
Yet the shoppers were ready with cash, checks and credit
Pushing folks down to the floor just to get it!
CDs from Madonna, an X BOX, an I-pod
something was changing,
something quite odd!
Retailers promoted Ramadan and Kwanzaa
in hopes to sell books by Franken & Fonda.
As Targets are hanging their trees upside down
At Lowe’s the word Christmas -
was no where to be found.
At K-Mart and Staples and Penny’s and Sears
You won’t hear the word Christmas;
it won’t touch your ears.
Inclusive, sensitive, Di-ver-is-ty
Are words that were used to intimidate me.
Now Daschle, Now Darden, Now Sharpton, Wolf Blitzen
On Boxer, on Rather, on Kerry, on Clinton !
At the top of the Senate, there arose such a clatter
to eliminate Jesus, in all public matter.
And we spoke not a word,
as they took away our faith
forbidden to speak of salvation and grace
The true Gift of Christmas was exchanged and discarded
The reason for the season, stopped before it started.
So as you celebrate “Winter Break” under your “DreamTree”
Sipping your Starbucks, listen to me.
Choose your words carefully,
choose what you say
Shout MERRY CHRISTMAS,
not Happy Holiday!

Archbishop Tutu is causing a stir!

Besides being a much loved personality held in high esteem by a great many, his words tend to carry extra weight being those of a Nobel Peace Laureate. Last month he said in a BBC interview that he is depressed by the Church’s “obsession” with the issue of gay priests, and believes that its Gospel message is being undermined by “extreme homophobia”.

His words were: “God must be weeping looking at some of the atrocities that we commit against one another. In the face of all of that, our Church, especially the Anglican Church, at this time is almost obsessed with questions of human sexuality.”

He said that the Anglican Church has seemed “extraordinarily homophobic” in its handling of the issue of ordination of gay priests, and that he had felt “saddened” and “ashamed” of his church at the time.

Asked if he still felt ashamed, his words were: “If we are going to not welcome or invite people because of sexual orientation, yes. If God, as they say, is homophobic, I wouldn’t worship that God.”

A phobia is a persistent, abnormal, irrational fear of something. Given that to be the case, calling someone a “homophobe” when it is understood that the prefix “homo” is to be expanded to mean either a homosexual person, or homosexuality, is to imply that they have a persistent, abnormal, irrational fear of homosexuality or a homosexual person.

However, it is often translated to mean a hatred of homosexuals or homosexuality, more so that a fear. And those who use that term to describe others are usually unwilling to separate sin from sinner, behaviour from the person per se. They refuse to accept that Christians can love the sinner (person) while deploring the sin (behaviour) and that hating the sin does not mean hating the person - not at all.

It could be argued that it is actually quite reasonable to have a fear of homosexual behaviour, and for a number of reasons. From the point of view of a Christian, such behaviour is a transgression against God and to commit sin is a serious thing - offending God is not a wise thing to do! Also from the point of view of a Christian, the consequences of sin are fearful, both eternally and in the here-and-now. There is a cost involved, a price required to be paid. For Christians the spiritual price is already paid, but we must “go and sin no more” and in health terms, the cost will still remain - huge costs! Therefore a fear of such behaviour, and the hatred of sin, is a quite reasonable and rational thing… provided it does not become a phobia with all the unhealthy aspects of phobias.

But the secular use of that term, when aimed in a loose and derogatory fashion at faithful Bible-believing Christians, is not usually meant in that way at all. There is nothing nicely refined in the meaning when it is hurled as an insult. It is deliberately meant to mislead and obfuscate, abuse and discredit.

So how is the beloved Archbishop Emeritus using that term? Well, I would say… completely out of order! And the following is what I mean:

There is an incredibly strong push from the politically powerful Gay Lobby to have homosexual behaviour considered “normal” behaviour, that it is just another form of sexual expression on par with heterosexual behaviour. They are succeeding in many quarters, but have smacked into a brick wall when it comes to the Church. Although many who subscribe to a more liberal theology will work hard to argue that God did not really mean to include same-sex sex as a sin, they have almost 2,000 years of traditional Christianity (plus a great many more thousands and thousands of years of Judaism before that) attesting to the meaning of Scripture on this point. The position of the Church, of all mainstream Christian churches, is that sex outside of marriage is a sin against God - both hetero and homo and anything else. This is the Scriptural truth. For more on this topic, see here.

Bishop Tutu makes the error of equating rejection of homosexual practice with racism, two things that are not moral equivalents. Skin colour is genetic, but for no want of trying, scientists have been completely unable to find a genetic basis for sexual orientation. Even presuming that one day they did, it is still behaviour that is sinful according to God’s Moral Law, just as one can say that the behaviour of alcoholism is sinful although there has already been a genetic predisposition established there. We all have sinful predispositions, but that does excuse us nor make our behaviour no longer sinful. On the other hand, skin colour is not a matter of morality. Bishop Tutu’s stance on this, siding with the fallacy that is propagated by the Gay Lobby and also the Inclusive Church (liberal Christians), has him the hero of those factions who object to the authority of Scripture, that want to (in essence) rewrite it to remove the damning words against their sexual immorality, and have the Church recant thousands of years of tradition and Biblical truth. And when the Church defends against this direct attack, he will side with those factions and call faithful Bible-believing Christians - homophobic! The Church presents the moral law of God - and if that must makes Him homophobic too, and if Bishop Tutu does not worship one such as that, then just what God does Bishop Tutu worship?

Sadly, Bishop Tutu has moved away from traditional Biblical Christianity and is showing his theology to be coloured liberal. He preaches a leaning towards universalism, the doctrine of inclusiveness taken beyond Christian boundaries. His speech at the World Council of Churches Convention in Porto Alegre, Brazil (2006) shows cause for concern.

Jesus — was quite serious when he said that God was our father and that we belonged all to one family, because in this family all, not some, are insiders. None is an outsider — Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, atheist, all belong, all are held in a divine embrace that will not let us go — all, for God has no enemies — I have said that God is not a Christian — Some people chewed me up for saying that, but I believe it. Some like to think that we Christians have the duty of protecting God. But I wish these people could meet the Dalai Lama. He is a holy person, incredible. We are the ones who keep trying to put limits on God, but God gives the incredible gift of grace.

A reporter asked Tutu if there are any limits to plurality and diversity when seeking unity. “God is the God of all,” replied Tutu. “We are too prone to excommunicate. God welcomes all of us.

Source

Yes indeed, God invites us all… but not all of us respond positively to Him, and not all take Him up on His offer of redemption. Only those who accept become the children of God. Not all… not at all. Bishop Tutu is confusing invitation with unconditional acceptance. God does not accept us unconditionally, although He does invites all to accept His plan for redemption and obedience thereafter. He welcomes us, but He has in mind to transform us, not keep us remaining the same. He also respects our integrity and if we choose not to accept, then He respects our wish to remain outside His Kingdom - we are responsible for our own excommunication. Bishop Tutu is expressing the beliefs of universalism, not of Biblical scholarship and Truth. The Dalai Lama is a holy man, but in not in Christianity. It was Jesus Himself who said “No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6) God welcomes us all, but on His own conditions, not ours. The grace He gives us is common grace, that is, common to all. Common grace is not saving grace, as Bishop Tutu would know but seems to have quite forgotten.

I listened to the recent BBC broadcast where Bishop Tutu expresses his views on homosexuality and the Church. I disagreed with him on many points. He is not preaching the full Gospel, only a partial gospel - a social gospel in fact, one of good works, not one of redemption and transformation. He tells only half the story, and by disputing the authority of Scripture he permits himself to pick-and-choose in a way that has caused error to creep into his beliefs. Accordingly, he now misjudges the church and because of his own status and influence, he is perpetrating mischief.

An excellant appraisal of this interview with Bishop Tutu has been written here by Dr Lisa Severine Nolland. An excerpt follows:

In broader terms, Desmond's biblical theology is fatally flawed. Though he claims he loves the Bible and especially the words of Jesus, in truth Desmond's theology is seriously compromised by a Pick-n-Mix approach. His bottom line seems to be the overwhelming love of God and the requisite to ‘do good' within a broader framework of ‘progressive' 60s Liberation Theology. Desmond preaches the ‘soft', human, God-has-low-standards-and-wears-his-heart-on-his-sleeve Jesus; the ‘hard' Jesus holds little appeal and is either ignored or rejected. Christ's teaching about the wrath and judgement of Almighty God on personal sin; individual choice pregnant with eternal consequence for good or for evil; holiness, righteousness, truth and morality; heaven and hell and so forth are filtered through the lens of Matthew 25 (‘I was hungry, and you fed me' etc.) - and very little remains. The ensuing void thus severely truncates the Christian Gospel on a good day and radically deconstructs it on a bad, as Bob Duncan notes.

Read here a particular view Bishop Tutu expresses and scroll down skimming the 100 comments to see what it has spawned. Do you see him defending Christian truth in this?

Here Bishop Tutu writes that “no religion is violent, thus by definition, Islam is not”. He explains that no religion teaches that murder and killing is right, so I must glean from such an opinion that he has never read the Qur’an or aHadith. And note the fallacy in his argument - that of constructing a definition and then attempting to validate something against it, rather than to take that something and look at its properties in order to validate or re-work the definition. Anyway, he is wrong, as neatly demonstrated by the writer of the final of the 31 comments. But again, look at the response he gets - the numbers all clinging to his every word as to one of great authority and unquestionable knowledge.

I’m sorry, Archbishop Tutu, but… I think you’ve lost the plot.