So I've been mulling over a few things since my last post and thought I'd share some ideas before I go back to discussing what much smarter people have said about this issue.
I'm becoming less convinced that Paul is arguing that women are more easily deceived than men in 1 Timothy 2:14. It seems that Eve's deception did not stem from a lack of intellectual understanding, but rather from a lack of trust in God's good plan. The fact that Satan's promise that, "Your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good from evil" (Genesis 3:5) appealed to Eve indicates that she was not content with her current situation. Instead of trusting that God's plan would bring her happiness, Eve was deceived into believing that eating the fruit would bring her more joy and make her life better.
I think that we allow ourselves to be deceived every time we sin. We willfully go against God's commands because we don't believe that following them will result in our good. We are deceived into believing that we must go outside of God's commands to find happiness or fulfillment. If I choose to gossip, it's because I've deceived myself into believing that gossiping will somehow make me happier than if I decided to abstain. Although I might not be thinking this at the time, my actions demonstrate that I don't really trust God's plan.
I think that all sin involves a certain amount of self-deception and refusal to trust that God's plan is good. Thus, Eve's deception seems like something that is common to everyone when they sin. If this is the case, arguing that women are more easily deceived than men from the example of Eve would appear to say that women are more prone to sin than men. Although this would be an awesome argument against women teaching and exercising authority over men, I don't think we have the biblical evidence to back this up. And it brings up a whole load of issues including: Was Jesus' work on the cross less powerful in women than in men? Is the Holy Spirit less active in women than in men? Are women as culpable for sin as men? Plus, if women were more prone to sin than men, why would they still be allowed to teach other women and children? It would make more sense for men to do all the teaching.
I think that Paul definitely uses Eve's sin in the garden to argue that women should not teach or exercise authority over men in the context of the church. I just don't think he's arguing that women shouldn't do these things because they are more easily deceived.
But, I could be wrong. Stay tuned to hear what some people with a few more degrees hanging on their walls have to say.
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
Thursday, October 19, 2006
Are Women More Easily Deceived?: Part Two
The second in a series examining if 1 Timothy 2:14 teaches that women are more easily deceived than men.
Today I’ll look at scholar Thomas R. Schreiner’s take on this issue. Schreiner contributes the chapter “A Dialogue with Scholarship” to the book Women in the Church: A Fresh Analysis of 1 Timothy 2:9-15. (Andreas J. Kostenberger, Thomas R. Schreiner, and H. Scott Baldwin, eds. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1995) The entire book addresses the interpretation of this much debated passage and defends the historical reading (women should not teach or exercise authority over men in the context of the church.)
Verse by verse, Schreiner examines both the historical reading of 1 Timothy 2:9-15 and the progressive reading (which states that the passage is not intended as a universal mandate against women teaching or exercising authority over men.)
Schreiner begins his discussion of 1 Timothy 2:14 by examining the progressive interpretation of the verse. Many proponents of this view argue that the women at Timothy’s church in Ephesus were under the influence of false teachers and were spreading heresy. Paul’s admonition that they not teach was not a universal mandate for all women, but a caution to these particular women until they were better educated. Progressives say that the reference to Eve’s deception indicates that the women at Ephesus were being deceived by false teachers and teaching others the heresy. Some progressives argue that Adam knew of God’s prohibition firsthand, while Eve only knew of it from Adam. Because she was uneducated about God’s command, she fell into sin. Therefore, the issue at hand was not that women as a whole should not teach, but rather uneducated women should be educated by men before they teach so they will not spread heresy.
Schreiner points out several flaws with this interpretation.
1. Nothing in the Bible ever suggests that Eve taught Adam. The focus is on Eve’s deception – not her teaching Adam. This verse can be used to argue that women were listening to heresy, but not that they were teaching it.
2. It doesn’t make much sense to argue that the women were deceived because they lacked knowledge. This implies that Adam must have severely bungled his explanation of God’s command for Eve to have been deceived by Satan. If Eve sinned because Adam didn’t communicate God’s command accurately, then why would Paul recommend that the women of Ephesus be educated by men before they teach?
3. Genesis 3 is clear that Eve was deceived by Satan, not Adam. And her deception was not out of ignorance but rather because Satan promised her that she could be like God and be independent of Him. Eve was deceived not because she was uneducated, but because she failed morally.
Schreiner effectively points out the problems with the progressive interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:14. He then explains that though the historical view (Paul forbids women from teaching because they are more likely to be deceived than men) is likely to offend modern audiences, it is much less speculative than the progressive view.
Schreiner believes one of the reasons Satan approached Eve instead of Adam was because of their different inclinations. Schreiner states, “Generally speaking, women are more relational and nurturing and men are more given to relational analysis and objectivity. Women are less prone than men to see the importance of doctrinal formulations, especially when it comes to the issue of identifying heresy and making a stand for the truth.” (145) Schreiner continues to argue that women are “less likely to draw a line on doctrinal non-negotiables” and are more likely to let heresy enter the church. This is why Paul admonishes that women should not teach doctrine to men.
While I appreciate Schreiner’s commitment to the Bible and agree with him about the holes in the progressive view, I have some problems with his explanation of the passage. Schreiner’s views on women’s inclinations seem to stem more from personal experience than evidence from Scripture. The Bible has great examples of women who were bold and accurate in their handling of God’s truth (see Deborah’s exhortation in Judges 4 and 5, Mary’s song in Luke 1, Priscilla in Acts 18) but I don’t find many women who allowed others to spout heresy because of their gentler nature.
I agree that women tend to be more relational and nurturing, but I don’t see why this would prevent them from valuing doctrine. Some of the most nurturing women I know are also very strong in their views on right doctrine and would speak up if someone wasn't handling God's Word accurately.
I think that Schreiner does a great job defending the historical view of 1 Timothy 2:9-15, but his explanation of 2:14 is a bit of a let down after such rigorous scholarship. I'm absolutely not ready to accept the progressive take on 2:14, but I'm not sure I'm ready to embrace Schreiner's take either. I'm not saying I adamantly disagree with him at this point, but I'd like to look at some other viewpoints before making a decision.
In the meantime, I'm still using my "whitening power" toothpaste and not seeing any results. However, I've found that I can deceive myself and others into thinking I have whiter teeth by wearing really red lipstick. And is that really so bad?
Today I’ll look at scholar Thomas R. Schreiner’s take on this issue. Schreiner contributes the chapter “A Dialogue with Scholarship” to the book Women in the Church: A Fresh Analysis of 1 Timothy 2:9-15. (Andreas J. Kostenberger, Thomas R. Schreiner, and H. Scott Baldwin, eds. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1995) The entire book addresses the interpretation of this much debated passage and defends the historical reading (women should not teach or exercise authority over men in the context of the church.)
Verse by verse, Schreiner examines both the historical reading of 1 Timothy 2:9-15 and the progressive reading (which states that the passage is not intended as a universal mandate against women teaching or exercising authority over men.)
Schreiner begins his discussion of 1 Timothy 2:14 by examining the progressive interpretation of the verse. Many proponents of this view argue that the women at Timothy’s church in Ephesus were under the influence of false teachers and were spreading heresy. Paul’s admonition that they not teach was not a universal mandate for all women, but a caution to these particular women until they were better educated. Progressives say that the reference to Eve’s deception indicates that the women at Ephesus were being deceived by false teachers and teaching others the heresy. Some progressives argue that Adam knew of God’s prohibition firsthand, while Eve only knew of it from Adam. Because she was uneducated about God’s command, she fell into sin. Therefore, the issue at hand was not that women as a whole should not teach, but rather uneducated women should be educated by men before they teach so they will not spread heresy.
Schreiner points out several flaws with this interpretation.
1. Nothing in the Bible ever suggests that Eve taught Adam. The focus is on Eve’s deception – not her teaching Adam. This verse can be used to argue that women were listening to heresy, but not that they were teaching it.
2. It doesn’t make much sense to argue that the women were deceived because they lacked knowledge. This implies that Adam must have severely bungled his explanation of God’s command for Eve to have been deceived by Satan. If Eve sinned because Adam didn’t communicate God’s command accurately, then why would Paul recommend that the women of Ephesus be educated by men before they teach?
3. Genesis 3 is clear that Eve was deceived by Satan, not Adam. And her deception was not out of ignorance but rather because Satan promised her that she could be like God and be independent of Him. Eve was deceived not because she was uneducated, but because she failed morally.
Schreiner effectively points out the problems with the progressive interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:14. He then explains that though the historical view (Paul forbids women from teaching because they are more likely to be deceived than men) is likely to offend modern audiences, it is much less speculative than the progressive view.
Schreiner believes one of the reasons Satan approached Eve instead of Adam was because of their different inclinations. Schreiner states, “Generally speaking, women are more relational and nurturing and men are more given to relational analysis and objectivity. Women are less prone than men to see the importance of doctrinal formulations, especially when it comes to the issue of identifying heresy and making a stand for the truth.” (145) Schreiner continues to argue that women are “less likely to draw a line on doctrinal non-negotiables” and are more likely to let heresy enter the church. This is why Paul admonishes that women should not teach doctrine to men.
While I appreciate Schreiner’s commitment to the Bible and agree with him about the holes in the progressive view, I have some problems with his explanation of the passage. Schreiner’s views on women’s inclinations seem to stem more from personal experience than evidence from Scripture. The Bible has great examples of women who were bold and accurate in their handling of God’s truth (see Deborah’s exhortation in Judges 4 and 5, Mary’s song in Luke 1, Priscilla in Acts 18) but I don’t find many women who allowed others to spout heresy because of their gentler nature.
I agree that women tend to be more relational and nurturing, but I don’t see why this would prevent them from valuing doctrine. Some of the most nurturing women I know are also very strong in their views on right doctrine and would speak up if someone wasn't handling God's Word accurately.
I think that Schreiner does a great job defending the historical view of 1 Timothy 2:9-15, but his explanation of 2:14 is a bit of a let down after such rigorous scholarship. I'm absolutely not ready to accept the progressive take on 2:14, but I'm not sure I'm ready to embrace Schreiner's take either. I'm not saying I adamantly disagree with him at this point, but I'd like to look at some other viewpoints before making a decision.
In the meantime, I'm still using my "whitening power" toothpaste and not seeing any results. However, I've found that I can deceive myself and others into thinking I have whiter teeth by wearing really red lipstick. And is that really so bad?
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Trust Me, Skinny Jeans Look Great on Every Body Type or Are Women More Easily Deceived?
"And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression." 1 Timothy 2:14
I look at my own life and have no problem believing that women are easily deceived. If a pair of pants fit me perfectly and are technically the same size as all my other pants, but are labeled one size larger, I refuse to buy them. I always buy toothpaste with "teeth whitening action", even though my teeth aren't any whiter after almost a year of use. I almost always buy name brand products, even if studies have shown that the cheaper versions work just as well. Women can absolutely be easily deceived. My question is, are women more easily deceived than men?
I started thinking about this question after reading an article about wives submitting to their husbands. As a fellow complementarian, I agreed with almost everything the author said, but one comment irked me. Most likely referring to 1 Timothy 2:14, the author explained that one reason women needed the protection of God and their husbands is because they are more easily deceived than men. "That's absolutely untrue!" I fumed to myself, "I see men being deceived all the time! You know, I'm going to post about this on my blog and show the world that 1 Timothy 2:14 is so not about women being more easily deceived."
So just like Martin Luther (who is said to have done his best theology when he was angry), I sat down to write my scathingly brilliant (at least in my mind) article. However, as I thought about it, I realized that my negative reactions to this comment weren't really based on anything biblical. Instead they were rooted in my personal experience - not the best grid for interpreting Scripture. Could it be that *gasp*, I've been deceived about women not being more easily deceived? Or does the Bible support what I've thought all along? I want to find out.
For the next few posts, I'll be delving into the concept of women being more easily deceived than men. I'll look at what smart people on both sides of the issue have said and hopefully come to a biblical conclusion.
And maybe next time I find the perfect pair of pants, I'll ignore the size on the tag and buy them. Or I'll just write a smaller size on the tag in Sharpie.
I look at my own life and have no problem believing that women are easily deceived. If a pair of pants fit me perfectly and are technically the same size as all my other pants, but are labeled one size larger, I refuse to buy them. I always buy toothpaste with "teeth whitening action", even though my teeth aren't any whiter after almost a year of use. I almost always buy name brand products, even if studies have shown that the cheaper versions work just as well. Women can absolutely be easily deceived. My question is, are women more easily deceived than men?
I started thinking about this question after reading an article about wives submitting to their husbands. As a fellow complementarian, I agreed with almost everything the author said, but one comment irked me. Most likely referring to 1 Timothy 2:14, the author explained that one reason women needed the protection of God and their husbands is because they are more easily deceived than men. "That's absolutely untrue!" I fumed to myself, "I see men being deceived all the time! You know, I'm going to post about this on my blog and show the world that 1 Timothy 2:14 is so not about women being more easily deceived."
So just like Martin Luther (who is said to have done his best theology when he was angry), I sat down to write my scathingly brilliant (at least in my mind) article. However, as I thought about it, I realized that my negative reactions to this comment weren't really based on anything biblical. Instead they were rooted in my personal experience - not the best grid for interpreting Scripture. Could it be that *gasp*, I've been deceived about women not being more easily deceived? Or does the Bible support what I've thought all along? I want to find out.
For the next few posts, I'll be delving into the concept of women being more easily deceived than men. I'll look at what smart people on both sides of the issue have said and hopefully come to a biblical conclusion.
And maybe next time I find the perfect pair of pants, I'll ignore the size on the tag and buy them. Or I'll just write a smaller size on the tag in Sharpie.
Saturday, October 14, 2006
Halloween and Christmas: Part 3
The last in a three part series about the similarities between Halloween and Christmas and thoughts on how Christians celebrate each holiday.
There are positive aspects to both holidays.
Pros for Halloween include:
1. Neighbors spend time together and get to know each other as everyone opens up their homes for one night. It's a prime time to build relationships within the community.
2. Children experience the fun of planning their costumes and dressing up. It's a delightful tradition that they look forward to all year long.
3. Parents bond with their children as they take them trick or treating.
Pros for Christmas include:
1. It encourages people to reflect on Christ's birth, which is always a good thing.
2. In our frantic individualistic society, Christmas is a holiday when people actually spend extended time with their family and friends.
3. Christmas encourages the development of family traditions, which can bond families and bring joy to children.
4. Starbucks Peppermint Hot Chocolates.
There are also negative aspects to both holidays.
Cons for Halloween include:
1. An emphasis on witchcraft and the devil.
2. Frightening and evil images on television, in the movies, on people's front lawns, and on first graders.
3. Some people use this day to celebrate things that are evil.
Cons for Christmas include:
1. Disrespect for the Bible including: children's stories told from the donkey's point of view, countless Christmas cards with pictures of a lily white Jesus and angels that look nothing like their description in the Bible, and the presence of wise men in every nativity scene when they weren't actually present at Jesus' birth.
2. Rampant materialism and greed. We spend hundreds of dollars and rack up credit card debt on things we don't need or will soon throw away, often while ignoring the basic needs of others.
3. A confusing collection of traditions and stories combined into one holiday so Santa and Jesus have equal standing.
It seems that Christians often want to abandon Halloween while embracing Christmas. Yet both holidays share roots in paganism, a fairly secular history in America, and can at times blatantly disrespect God's Word. When both holidays have so much in common, it seems inconsistent to heap praise on one and condemnation on the other. I think we may need a more balanced approach - making sure we don't throw the baby out with the bath water in the case of Halloween and making sure the baby doesn't drown in the bath water in the case of Christmas.
For example, Halloween is a prime time to build relationships with our neighbors. Christians are called to share the gospel with our community and Halloween provides a fun and natural way to connect with others, whether by trick or treating together or greeting people at the door. Maybe Christians should stay in their homes, hand out candy, and get to know their neighbors on Halloween. (Disclaimer: While people often see Halloween as simply a fun evening for children, the holiday can have demonic connotations for others. Those whose consciences are troubled by involvement in Halloween activites should absolutely not participate.)
There are some Christmas traditions that we might want to rethink, such as overspending. Instead of going into debt for presents, what if Christians donated their money to people in need? I know of a family that adopted another family that was struggling financially. When the parents bought their children Christmas presents, they made sure to buy presents for the kids in their adopted family as well. We could also be more careful of how we communicate the Christmas story, especially to children. We can make sure we focus on the facts of the Bible (not adding extra characters like the mean innkeeper or the little drummer boy) and make Jesus the main character (as opposed to Mary, Joseph, the shepherds, the talking cow in the barn, the littlest angel, the star who could never do anything right but on one special night got the chance to shine . . .)
Halloween and Christmas share checkered pasts and some less than admirable traditions. They also present great opportunities to further God's Kingdom. I believe that if we approach each holiday with thought, care, and biblical conviction, we can use them to show love to our communities and bring honor to God.
There are positive aspects to both holidays.
Pros for Halloween include:
1. Neighbors spend time together and get to know each other as everyone opens up their homes for one night. It's a prime time to build relationships within the community.
2. Children experience the fun of planning their costumes and dressing up. It's a delightful tradition that they look forward to all year long.
3. Parents bond with their children as they take them trick or treating.
Pros for Christmas include:
1. It encourages people to reflect on Christ's birth, which is always a good thing.
2. In our frantic individualistic society, Christmas is a holiday when people actually spend extended time with their family and friends.
3. Christmas encourages the development of family traditions, which can bond families and bring joy to children.
4. Starbucks Peppermint Hot Chocolates.
There are also negative aspects to both holidays.
Cons for Halloween include:
1. An emphasis on witchcraft and the devil.
2. Frightening and evil images on television, in the movies, on people's front lawns, and on first graders.
3. Some people use this day to celebrate things that are evil.
Cons for Christmas include:
1. Disrespect for the Bible including: children's stories told from the donkey's point of view, countless Christmas cards with pictures of a lily white Jesus and angels that look nothing like their description in the Bible, and the presence of wise men in every nativity scene when they weren't actually present at Jesus' birth.
2. Rampant materialism and greed. We spend hundreds of dollars and rack up credit card debt on things we don't need or will soon throw away, often while ignoring the basic needs of others.
3. A confusing collection of traditions and stories combined into one holiday so Santa and Jesus have equal standing.
It seems that Christians often want to abandon Halloween while embracing Christmas. Yet both holidays share roots in paganism, a fairly secular history in America, and can at times blatantly disrespect God's Word. When both holidays have so much in common, it seems inconsistent to heap praise on one and condemnation on the other. I think we may need a more balanced approach - making sure we don't throw the baby out with the bath water in the case of Halloween and making sure the baby doesn't drown in the bath water in the case of Christmas.
For example, Halloween is a prime time to build relationships with our neighbors. Christians are called to share the gospel with our community and Halloween provides a fun and natural way to connect with others, whether by trick or treating together or greeting people at the door. Maybe Christians should stay in their homes, hand out candy, and get to know their neighbors on Halloween. (Disclaimer: While people often see Halloween as simply a fun evening for children, the holiday can have demonic connotations for others. Those whose consciences are troubled by involvement in Halloween activites should absolutely not participate.)
There are some Christmas traditions that we might want to rethink, such as overspending. Instead of going into debt for presents, what if Christians donated their money to people in need? I know of a family that adopted another family that was struggling financially. When the parents bought their children Christmas presents, they made sure to buy presents for the kids in their adopted family as well. We could also be more careful of how we communicate the Christmas story, especially to children. We can make sure we focus on the facts of the Bible (not adding extra characters like the mean innkeeper or the little drummer boy) and make Jesus the main character (as opposed to Mary, Joseph, the shepherds, the talking cow in the barn, the littlest angel, the star who could never do anything right but on one special night got the chance to shine . . .)
Halloween and Christmas share checkered pasts and some less than admirable traditions. They also present great opportunities to further God's Kingdom. I believe that if we approach each holiday with thought, care, and biblical conviction, we can use them to show love to our communities and bring honor to God.
Halloween and Christmas: Part 2
The second in a three part series about the similarities between Halloween and Christmas and thoughts on how Christians celebrate each holiday.
There are several more similarities between Halloween and Christmas.
Neither are mentioned in the Bible.
Christians have opposed both holidays.
European immigrants brought their Halloween traditions to America during colonial times, but most of New England refused to celebrate the day due the Puritan influence in that area. Many Christians also oppose the celebration of Halloween today.
At the time of the Reformation, the Protestants refused to celebrate Christmas because they considered it a holiday concocted by the Catholic Church. The Puritans also opposed the celebration of Christmas and often with good reason. In England, people would dutifully go to church and then celebrate the holiday in a drunken, Mardi Gras like atmosphere. In 1645, Oliver Cromwell and the Puritans wanted to rid England of her decadence and Christmas was cancelled until the reign of Charles II. The American Puritan settlers did not practice Christmas and the holiday was actually outlawed in Boston from 1659 to 1681. Anyone showing Christmas spirit would be fined five shillings.
The American incarnations of each holiday bear little resemblance to the original religious celebrations.
Interestingly, the American incarnations of each holiday were not embraced out of religious convictions, but rather because of their supposed benefits to the community.
European immigrants brought many of their Halloween customs to America and the flood of Irish immigrants in 1846 helped popularize the holiday. Americans began to dress up in costumes and go door to door asking for food and money. This practice waned during the nineteenth century when the holiday was primarily celebrated with parties in homes, but became popular again between the 1920's and 50's. By this time, Halloween had lost most of its religious undertones and became a secular and community centered holiday directed primarily at children. Today most children have no concept of the religious origins of dressing in costume or trick or treating. Witches do still cast spells and perform rituals on October 31st, but it is in celebration of Samhain, not Halloween.
The celebration of Christmas in America was not widespread until the 19th century (it wasn't even a federal holiday until 1870) and the celebration of the holiday was greatly influenced by two authors: Washington Irving and Charles Dickens. Both wrote Christmas stories which emphasized charity, goodwill, and kindness to the poor and evoked old English Christmas customs. This struck a chord in a time of great class conflict and the Victorians saw the benefit of celebrating the holiday.
Both holidays are essential to America's economy.
Halloween is America's second largest commerical holiday and Americans spend an estimated $6.9 billion a year. Christmas is America's largest commercial holiday and Americans spend over $200 billion a year.
Each holiday has its own heartwarming Peanuts special involving Linus discovering a great truth.
All right, this isn't really relevant. But it's true.
Check back tomorrow to find out the problem with nativity sets.
There are several more similarities between Halloween and Christmas.
Neither are mentioned in the Bible.
Christians have opposed both holidays.
European immigrants brought their Halloween traditions to America during colonial times, but most of New England refused to celebrate the day due the Puritan influence in that area. Many Christians also oppose the celebration of Halloween today.
At the time of the Reformation, the Protestants refused to celebrate Christmas because they considered it a holiday concocted by the Catholic Church. The Puritans also opposed the celebration of Christmas and often with good reason. In England, people would dutifully go to church and then celebrate the holiday in a drunken, Mardi Gras like atmosphere. In 1645, Oliver Cromwell and the Puritans wanted to rid England of her decadence and Christmas was cancelled until the reign of Charles II. The American Puritan settlers did not practice Christmas and the holiday was actually outlawed in Boston from 1659 to 1681. Anyone showing Christmas spirit would be fined five shillings.
The American incarnations of each holiday bear little resemblance to the original religious celebrations.
Interestingly, the American incarnations of each holiday were not embraced out of religious convictions, but rather because of their supposed benefits to the community.
European immigrants brought many of their Halloween customs to America and the flood of Irish immigrants in 1846 helped popularize the holiday. Americans began to dress up in costumes and go door to door asking for food and money. This practice waned during the nineteenth century when the holiday was primarily celebrated with parties in homes, but became popular again between the 1920's and 50's. By this time, Halloween had lost most of its religious undertones and became a secular and community centered holiday directed primarily at children. Today most children have no concept of the religious origins of dressing in costume or trick or treating. Witches do still cast spells and perform rituals on October 31st, but it is in celebration of Samhain, not Halloween.
The celebration of Christmas in America was not widespread until the 19th century (it wasn't even a federal holiday until 1870) and the celebration of the holiday was greatly influenced by two authors: Washington Irving and Charles Dickens. Both wrote Christmas stories which emphasized charity, goodwill, and kindness to the poor and evoked old English Christmas customs. This struck a chord in a time of great class conflict and the Victorians saw the benefit of celebrating the holiday.
Both holidays are essential to America's economy.
Halloween is America's second largest commerical holiday and Americans spend an estimated $6.9 billion a year. Christmas is America's largest commercial holiday and Americans spend over $200 billion a year.
Each holiday has its own heartwarming Peanuts special involving Linus discovering a great truth.
All right, this isn't really relevant. But it's true.
Check back tomorrow to find out the problem with nativity sets.
Thursday, October 12, 2006
Halloween and Christmas: Separated at Birth?
At first glance, it seems that Halloween and Christmas couldn't be more different. After all, Halloween appears to celebrate death, evil, and witchcraft while Christmas celebrates the birth of the perfect Savior of the world. But when you think about it, Halloween and Christmas share some striking similarities.
Both have roots in paganism.
The roots of Halloween date back to about two thousand years ago. The Celts who lived in what is now Ireland celebrated their new year on November 1st. This heralded the beginning of winter, which was commonly associated with human death. The Celts believed that ghosts of the dead returned to earth on October 31st and their presence made it easier to predict the future. During this holiday the Druid priests made predictions and the Celts built huge bonfires where they sacrificed crops and animals and dressed in animal heads and skins. When the Romans conquered the Celtic territory in A.D. 43, they incorporated two of their festivals into Samhain.
For many years, people were frightened that they might encounter a ghost if they left their homes, so they wore masks after dark in hopes that the ghosts wouldn't recognize them and believe they were fellow spirits. People also placed bowls of food outside their homes to keep ghosts from entering.
Pagan midwinter festivals existed long before Christmas. The Romans celebrated Saturnalia the week before the winter solstice and the festival lasted an entire month. This holiday honored Saturn, the god of agriculture, and included drinking, feasting, and the closing of schools and businesses. The Romans decorated their homes with boughs of evergreen to illustrate how Saturn would soon make their land fruitful. The Germans celebrated the god Oden during this time and the Norse held a celebration called Yule, which involved burning large logs.
Both were established by the Catholic Church.
The holiday known as Halloween was actually created by the established Church. Christianity eventually spread to the Celtic lands and in the seventh century, the Church instituted All Saints' Day or All-Hallows on November 1st. This day was set aside to honor saints and martyrs and some believe it was the pope's attempt to replace Samhain. October 31st was referred to as All-Hallows Eve, which eventually became Halloween. In A.D. 998, the Church designated November 2nd as All Souls' Day, a day to remember and pray for souls in purgatory. Some say that dressing up as devils, saints, and angels was a common practice on this day and the celebration also involved bonfires and parades.
The tradition of "trick or treating" most likely stems from All Souls' Day parades in England. During the celebration, poor citizens would beg for food and the wealthy would give them pastries called "soul cakes" in return for a promise to pray for the family's dead relatives in purgatory. Eventually, children took up this practice and traveled to different houses where they received food, ale, and money. This custom was referred to as "going a-souling."
Christmas was first celebrated in the fourth century when the Church chose December 25th as the date of Christ's birth. No one is sure why this particular date was chosen, but some believe it was due to the fact that this was already a public holiday for pagan celebrations. This would increase the chance that Christianity would be publicly embraced. The celebration spread to Egypt in A.D. 432, to England in the sixth century and to Scandinavia by the end of the eighth century.
Both tend to distort the truth.
Halloween turns witches and the devil into cute and cuddly characters and chubby cheeked toddlers seem to have no qualms about trick or treating dressed as Satan. Christmas takes the frightening, harsh, and beautiful story of Christ's birth and transforms it into a cozy little tale about a cheerful barn, some happy animals, and a little baby who didn't cry.
Check back tomorrow to find out what else Christmas and Halloween have in common, including their connection to Linus Van Pelt.
Both have roots in paganism.
The roots of Halloween date back to about two thousand years ago. The Celts who lived in what is now Ireland celebrated their new year on November 1st. This heralded the beginning of winter, which was commonly associated with human death. The Celts believed that ghosts of the dead returned to earth on October 31st and their presence made it easier to predict the future. During this holiday the Druid priests made predictions and the Celts built huge bonfires where they sacrificed crops and animals and dressed in animal heads and skins. When the Romans conquered the Celtic territory in A.D. 43, they incorporated two of their festivals into Samhain.
For many years, people were frightened that they might encounter a ghost if they left their homes, so they wore masks after dark in hopes that the ghosts wouldn't recognize them and believe they were fellow spirits. People also placed bowls of food outside their homes to keep ghosts from entering.
Pagan midwinter festivals existed long before Christmas. The Romans celebrated Saturnalia the week before the winter solstice and the festival lasted an entire month. This holiday honored Saturn, the god of agriculture, and included drinking, feasting, and the closing of schools and businesses. The Romans decorated their homes with boughs of evergreen to illustrate how Saturn would soon make their land fruitful. The Germans celebrated the god Oden during this time and the Norse held a celebration called Yule, which involved burning large logs.
Both were established by the Catholic Church.
The holiday known as Halloween was actually created by the established Church. Christianity eventually spread to the Celtic lands and in the seventh century, the Church instituted All Saints' Day or All-Hallows on November 1st. This day was set aside to honor saints and martyrs and some believe it was the pope's attempt to replace Samhain. October 31st was referred to as All-Hallows Eve, which eventually became Halloween. In A.D. 998, the Church designated November 2nd as All Souls' Day, a day to remember and pray for souls in purgatory. Some say that dressing up as devils, saints, and angels was a common practice on this day and the celebration also involved bonfires and parades.
The tradition of "trick or treating" most likely stems from All Souls' Day parades in England. During the celebration, poor citizens would beg for food and the wealthy would give them pastries called "soul cakes" in return for a promise to pray for the family's dead relatives in purgatory. Eventually, children took up this practice and traveled to different houses where they received food, ale, and money. This custom was referred to as "going a-souling."
Christmas was first celebrated in the fourth century when the Church chose December 25th as the date of Christ's birth. No one is sure why this particular date was chosen, but some believe it was due to the fact that this was already a public holiday for pagan celebrations. This would increase the chance that Christianity would be publicly embraced. The celebration spread to Egypt in A.D. 432, to England in the sixth century and to Scandinavia by the end of the eighth century.
Both tend to distort the truth.
Halloween turns witches and the devil into cute and cuddly characters and chubby cheeked toddlers seem to have no qualms about trick or treating dressed as Satan. Christmas takes the frightening, harsh, and beautiful story of Christ's birth and transforms it into a cozy little tale about a cheerful barn, some happy animals, and a little baby who didn't cry.
Check back tomorrow to find out what else Christmas and Halloween have in common, including their connection to Linus Van Pelt.
Saturday, October 07, 2006
Welcome To My Blog
Hi Everyone!
I always tend to be two to four years behind the times.
I didn't get a CD player until they stopped selling audio cassettes. I didn't know how to use the internet for research until after I graduated from college in 2002. I can no longer rent from Blockbuster because they don't carry videos.
So now that everyone else in the world has been blogging for years, I figured it was finally time to join them.
Stay tuned for thoughts on current events, ministry, or where to find a really swell hot chocolate as well as links to articles and websites I find interesting.
And please take it all with several grains of salt.
Hopefully, I'll be able to continue this blog two to three years after blogs become obsolete.
I always tend to be two to four years behind the times.
I didn't get a CD player until they stopped selling audio cassettes. I didn't know how to use the internet for research until after I graduated from college in 2002. I can no longer rent from Blockbuster because they don't carry videos.
So now that everyone else in the world has been blogging for years, I figured it was finally time to join them.
Stay tuned for thoughts on current events, ministry, or where to find a really swell hot chocolate as well as links to articles and websites I find interesting.
And please take it all with several grains of salt.
Hopefully, I'll be able to continue this blog two to three years after blogs become obsolete.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
