Where Are the Parents?

Two recent incidents with Charlotte connections, both involving 18-year-olds, have made headlines and initiated debate over parental involvement and control of their offspring. Perhaps it is a good idea to consider these events ourselves to hone our judgment on such matters.

The first episode appears to be a success story of the first degree. A local beauty, Brooklyn Decker, from the Charlotte suburb of Matthews, North Carolina, finishes high school last summer and immediately sets out for the bright lights and possibilities of New York City. Within a few months, she is modeling for national publications, and soon she lands one of the top modeling assignments in the world: Victoria’s Secret. Most recently, she secures another top-model prize when she appears in Sports Illustrated's annual swimsuit edition, adding her name to a short list of supermodels like Heidi Klum, Rachel Hunter, and Elle Macpherson, who are also Sports Illustrated alumnae. All this fame and success has occurred in just seven months!

But the poses and the scanty attire! Obviously, modeling has become increasingly revealing, and perhaps the foremost peddlers of skin—at least in terms of popular awareness—are Victoria's Secret and Sports Illustrated. Lingerie and bathing suits these days leave little to the imagination, and these are the meager articles of clothing in which young Miss Decker is regularly photographed and displayed in catalogues, magazines, commercials, and other advertisements. Do her parents not mind that every red-blooded male in America sees her like this—not to mention where their carnal minds subsequently drive them?

Not in the least, according to Miss Decker, who was interviewed by a local talk-show host this past Wednesday morning. Her parents are totally behind her and support her every decision. As she says, they think her pictures are "beautiful" and "happy" because they make her happy—"They are definitely not ashamed of it. . . . They're more than proud." Her younger brother, who is sixteen, thinks it is cool that she hangs out with the biggest names in modeling and that he gets to attend some of the parties, where he can take pictures of her new friends to show to his buddies at school. She claims that her whole family revels in her success—but what she does will have no affect on their family values. She will "remain grounded." As for nudity, it depends on the situation; in fact, most of the time, she says, it is "just artistic."

The second incident happened early Sunday morning on Charlotte's I-485, which encircles about two-thirds of the city. Brock Franklin, a high school senior from a prestigious neighborhood, drunkenly drove his vehicle the wrong way along the interstate, and the only thing that stopped him was a head-on collision with another automobile. The two passengers in the latter car died at the scene, and Mr. Franklin lies in a coma at a Charlotte hospital with bleeding in his brain and a lacerated liver. If he recovers, he will be charged with several crimes, certainly driving while impaired and perhaps two counts of manslaughter.

Franklin describes himself as a "redneck that parties with my friends all the time. I enjoy getting drunk and gettin [sic] high," saying that, as he filled in his expletive-strewn MySpace.com profile, he was smoking pot. He lost his father, a Charlotte firefighter, two years ago, and lives with his mother and sister in an affluent section of the city. Yet, despite his sobering loss and his family's need for strength and maturity, everything about him that has been made public portrays him as an out-of-control, self-destructive young man.

Until now, his mother has been publicly silent about him and the accident. How silent was she about his drinking, drug-taking, and partying? Having lost all control, did she just throw her hands up in exasperation and let him run wild? Or was she ignorant of his activities? It is hard to believe she was not aware of his radical behavior. Evidently, she did nothing about it.

It is true that both of these young people are legally adults, but does parental responsibility and care come to an immediate end on a child’s eighteenth birthday? Maybe more to the point, the behaviors in question did not suddenly begin on the child's eighteenth birthday but were supported or allowed before then for some time. Evidently, the parents' permissiveness or absenteeism in their children's younger years led to their recent dubious activities. Although the parents would deny it, they essentially let their children grow up on their own. The Bible says—and how true it is!—"A child left to himself brings shame to his mother" (Proverbs 29:15).

We live in a youth-oriented and -glorifying culture, a fact that blares on our radios, televisions, billboards, Internet sites—everywhere. But young, good-looking, talented, strong, capable, exciting, and fun does not necessarily translate into wise. This is where parents should come in. They need to be the moral, ethical, commonsense voice that provides direction and guidance for the energies and aspirations of young people. Yet, for a number of reasons—all of them silly in the final analysis—parents these days seem to be afraid to correct their children. Solomon again provides a pointed proverb: "Chasten [discipline, correct, advise] your son while there is hope, and do not set your heart on his destruction" (Proverbs 19:18). Put negatively, if for whatever reason parents fail to guide their children, they are actually dooming them to lifetimes of grief and ruin. This should be incentive enough to try to make a difference!

As for teens, who are going through these difficult times, remember Solomon’s sage advice:

Listen to your father who begot you, and do not despise your mother when she is old. . . . The father of the righteous will greatly rejoice, and he who begets a wise child will delight in him. Let your father and your mother be glad, and let her who bore you rejoice.” (Proverbs 23:22, 24-25)

'We Live to the Lord'

How many of us—Christians, disciples of our Savior Jesus Christ, begotten children of God—lead lives based on the principle the apostle Paul presents in Romans 14:7-8?

For none of us lives to himself, and no one dies to himself. For if we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. Therefore, whether we live or die, we are the Lord's.

This apostolic pronouncement, confirmed in numerous passages throughout the Bible, runs counter to the prevailing philosophy of this age. Our American society—as well as other modern and postmodern societies around the world—is built on the concept of individualism. Just a few centuries ago, people believed that "no man is an island," but over the intervening decades a spirit of personal independence has grown to become a central tenet that influences every facet of life.

Perhaps the last two remaining vestiges of the older way of thinking exist in family ties and teamwork, and both of these are slipping away at a frightening rate. Progressives have sought and succeeded in redefining family to include just about anyone living under a single roof, no matter how they might be related by blood or marriage—or not. As for teamwork, all one has to do is watch just about any team sport and the trend becomes readily apparent. Business has kept team spirit alive, but the fundamental reason for it comes down to individual profit.

It would be interesting to ask a significant sample of the population, "What do you live for?" The answers, of course, would be many and varied, but it is probable that they would boil down to a few major categories:

• Self
• Family
• Wealth
• Power
• Fame/Prestige
• Excitement/Risk/Adventure
• Knowledge
• Altruism/Philanthropy
• Nothing/Uncertain
• Spiritual/Religious Reasons

Obviously, some of these overlap or go hand-in-hand, but most of them are fundamentally self-centered and self-aggrandizing. Even "family," "altruism/philanthropy," and "spiritual/religious reasons" have selfish angles. Because we are human, we have a terribly hard time—perhaps an impossible one—extricating our baser selves from even our highest aspirations. In even the most altruistic among us is a desire to satisfy one's own desires.

Yet, through the apostle Paul, God lays down a guiding principle that human nature makes almost impossible to live up to: "We live to the Lord." Perhaps had God called us out of a culture of slavery, as those in the first century were, we would be better suited to do this. But He did not. He called us out of the most individualistic, materialistic culture that has ever existed on the planet, perhaps rivaled only by the days before the Flood (Genesis 6:5) and the chaotic period of Israel’s judges when "everyone did what was right in his own eyes" (Judges 21:25).

God must think that it is possible, even for us. This is not to say that it is easy. It takes faith, courage, perseverance, and a great deal of vision to wrench one’s thoughts, words, and actions out of the raging current of this world (Ephesians 2:2) and to paddle in the opposite direction. It is mentally and emotionally exhausting, and progress is often slow—and sometimes nonexistent and even retrograde! However, the effort is beneficial in itself, teaching us valuable lessons and building essential traits of character.

So, how are we doing?

Do we "do all to the glory of God" (I Corinthians 10:31)? We should not consider this in just the major matters of life but in the minor details, for if we set our minds to honor God in the little matters, we will already be in the habit of doing so when the big ones arise (see Luke 16:10). As His representatives on earth, it is vital that whoever observes us sees a reflection of Him in us.

Do we give "thanks always for all things to God" (Ephesians 5:20)? In this day of rudeness and incivility, gratitude is a misunderstood and often undervalued virtue. However, gratitude teaches obligation and acknowledgement of providence. Being thankful keeps our minds trained on the fact that, without God, we would have nothing, and thus we owe Him our obedience as our kind Benefactor.

Do we "live by faith in the Son of God, who loved [us] and gave Himself for [us]" (Galatians 2:20)? Living by faith means that we follow Jesus' teaching no matter where it leads us because He owns us wholly and completely by His redemptive work. So, if God's Word says, "Come out from among them and be separate" (II Corinthians 6:17), we should be doing our very best to reject the anti-God practices of this world, no matter what they are and what may result. We do this because we implicitly trust our Savior.

Paul writes in Philippians 1:21: "For to me, to live is Christ." Do we think this way? Do Jesus Christ, His teaching, and His desires for us fill our lives to the extent that they are our lives? That is what Paul means: His every waking moment was lived with Christ foremost in mind: obeying Him, glorifying Him, thanking Him, pleasing Him. If we do this—if we try to do this—we will make great strides toward being prepared for (Revelation 19:7) and hastening (II Peter 3:12) the establishment of God’s Kingdom.

Under Green at the Crossed Flags

If you will, please indulge me, as I am about to give some advice. Today, I begin my fifth decade, and since this opportunity presents itself so rarely, I want to take advantage of it. Call it my chance to take stock of my life at its halfway point, God willing, and having done so, to share some of the lessons I have learned.

Many of you have heard me say that one of my favorite psalms, perhaps my favorite, is Psalm 90, a contemplation or prayer by Moses about time, particularly about God's timelessness as compared to man's brevity. It can also be seen as a comparison between God's power and man's frailty. After mulling these matters over, Moses' conclusion appears in verse 12 as a plea to God: "Teach us to number our days, that we may gain a heart of wisdom."

In today's vernacular, we would say, "Help us to realize that our time here is short so that we will prioritize rightly." Seventy or eighty years seem like a long time, but as one ages, a lifetime appears to become shorter and shorter. Elderly people tell me with frightening regularity that they really wonder where all their time went—and that they have noticed that it speeds up as they get older. They just shake their heads in disbelief, perhaps regretting misspent days and weeks and months and years in futile endeavors. With human life so brief, like grass that sprouts in the morning and withers by evening, we have to put life's big issues first.

So I have come up with a few tidbits based on my forty years of experience that may help others, particularly younger people, in prioritizing life. They are in no order of importance.

• Do not read when afflicted with measles. I contracted measles when I was fifteen, and no teenager wants to be out of commission for the few weeks it takes to get over them. But there was really nothing else to do but read. I remember at least one of the books I devoured during my convalescence, and I regret every word of it every time I put on my glasses. I probably had weak eyes anyway, but reading while plagued with measles hastened their decline.

The bigger picture is, when sick, it is a good idea to rest and recover. Sickness is the body's rather painful way of telling us that we need to slow down. Rushing to get back into circulation could cause worse problems down the road.

• Be sure that your sin will find you out. I would rather not go into any of the grisly details of my sins, but I have learned that, if we are a child of God, He does not let us get away with anything. Sin always comes back around to bite us—and often when it will hurt most. Suffice it to say that, not long before my encounter with measles, I lied to my parents about an activity I really wanted to go to. Of course, circumstances just "worked out" that they ended up at the same place, and my goose was cooked!

Things like this have happened too often to be mere coincidence. God is watching out for us, and desirous to build character in us, He forces us to acknowledge what we have done wrong and to feel its bitter effects.

• Ups and downs are normal, and the downs provide momentum to get us to the top. There were times during my college years that life seemed to be a neck-spraining rollercoaster ride. One day I was mowing grass, pruning shrubs, and blowing off sidewalks, and the next I had the cushiest job on campus—as a rising sophomore! A short two years passed, during which I had to navigate lesser hills and valleys, and then I was back to pruning shrubs, having fallen from grace. Yet, less than a month later, I was hired at the campus radio station—what a cool way to spend one's senior year!

Looking back, I can see that God was completely in control of my trajectory and that the low spots were interludes that enabled me to prepare or be prepared for upcoming high spots. A slice of humble pie is often a good thing.

• The glass is half-full. I cannot remember when I decided not to let life's brickbats turn me sour—perhaps there was never a conscious decision but just my personality. I do know that, during a period of reading Ernest Hemingway novels, I really pondered the meaning of Ecclesiastes 1:5: "The sun also rises," the title of one of his books. To me, it can mean the same as Little Orphan Annie singing, "The sun'll come out tomorrow." One might as well expect every day to be sunny.

Life is too good to spoil with negativity. Sure, there are times to be serious and even grave, but perpetual pessimism is bad all around. It lines the face with wrinkles, frays the nerves, inflicts splitting headaches, crushes hope, and could send one to an early grave. A life full of joie de vivre is so much more appealing.

• Stay away from the edge of the cliff. A person is most likely to get into trouble when he puts himself in harm's way. The best way to avoid trouble, then, is to play it safe. I took at least three defensive driving courses while at college, and they have proven invaluable. Until now, of which I am thankful, I have never been in a car accident—never been ticketed even. Besides having God's blessing, I credit it to focusing on driving when I am behind the wheel and steering clear of potentially dangerous situations.

Sometimes, life's course takes us through dangerous country, but we can choose to follow the safe path or the risky path. Temptations lie along the risky route, which is lined with precipitous cliffs that portend neck-breaking falls. Jesus says the way to His Kingdom is difficult enough as it is. Do not make it any harder.

• Everyone needs an avocation. Most of us spend a great deal of time and effort finding, preparing for, and building a career, a vocation, but too few of us pursue an avocation—commonly called a hobby or diversion—with anywhere near the effort. This, I have heard, makes Rich a dull boy and fills his life with stress. My vocation (minister and editor) and my avocation (writer) are complementary. I also enjoy NASCAR racing, which allows me to let off a little steam every once in a while.

Americans are world-renowned for their work ethic, but in too many cases, it results in burned-out, relationship-challenged men (and sometimes women too). Having an enjoyable pastime helps to round a person out and bleeds off the pressure of life.

Well, there it is, for what it is worth. I hope my few drops of wisdom brighten your day and enhance your life. They have mine. Thanks for indulging me.

Somewhere in the Middle

Listen (RealAudio)

A few weeks ago, a local talk-show host, self-described as "an aging hippie," remarked that he believed that in most matters one can find "the truth somewhere in the middle." He proceeded to explain that on just about any issue, if a person took a middle course between the lunatic Left and the Neanderthal right, he could arrive at or near the truth. My immediate reaction—an automatic response from constantly working with words—was to devise a pun on his key phrase. I thought, "His thinking on this in somewhere in the muddle."

Certainly, wisdom has escaped him on this idea. Perhaps in an overall sense, in terms of politics, what he has concluded contains an element of reality: Practical, governmental policy usually lies between two extremes. For instance, in the matter of environmental regulations, nature-worshippers push for draconian land-use laws, arguing that plants and animals and their natural habitats take priority over human development. On the other extreme falls the "git off mah land" crowd, which contends that no one and no government can regulate what they do on and with their property. Just, workable procedures walk a fine line between property rights and the common good of the community.

However, a tenet supposing that "the truth lies in the middle" is an ethically dangerous one. Applied universally, it guarantees a person a life—and communally, a culture—of compromise. Such a person or community will take a stand on nothing. Every decision will be a negotiation between whatever is perceived to be at the far ends of the spectrum. This is life in the gray land of rootless vacillation. It is living without convictions, without belief in the existence of truth.

The peril in living by this principle reveals itself most readily in matters of morality. In His Ten Commandments, God outlines truths regarding human conduct, both toward Himself and toward fellow man. These rules are not guidelines, as many seem to consider them today, but non-negotiable standards. As He patiently explains in places like Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28, if we live by them, we will receive all sorts of blessings, but if we reject them and violate them, we had better brace ourselves for calamity. With God and His laws of happy, successful human behavior, there is no middle ground.

Yet, those who try to walk a centrist road often consider the Ten Commandments to be one of the extremes—the aforementioned Neanderthal right—and begin backpedaling toward antinomianism, otherwise known as anarchy or lawlessness. For example, God instructs us, "You shall not murder" (Exodus 20:13), an unambiguous statement. In other places, God explains that manslaughter is an exception to this, but even one who commits manslaughter must pay a stiff penalty for ending a human life (see Exodus 21:13; 22:2-3; Numbers 35:16-28; Deuteronomy 19:4-6). As clear as this is, though, centrists rationalize further exceptions to reach personal comfort zones.

Abortion is a sad case of such compromise. As the murder of a human life, abortion falls under the umbrella of the sixth commandment. A centrist may not agree with radical, pro-choice advocates that abortion should be on demand at any time and for any reason, yet he might allow the use of RU-486 (mifepristone), the abortion pill, because he concludes it does not technically cause an abortion (in many—but not all—cases, it is used to prevent conception).

Another concession on the abortion issue is the ubiquitous proviso, "except in cases of rape or incest." If one believes that abortion is murder, accepting this position opens a crack in the dike. It assumes that the life to be extinguished is of lesser worth due to the manner of its conception. Ultimately, this exception operates on a belief that it is permissible to end a pregnancy if it can be determined—somehow—that the child would not enjoy a certain quality of life. Thus, it also becomes allowable to abort malformed and retarded babies, and the next step would be to abort potentially chronically ill children, say, those with genetic markers that point to certain debilitating diseases and syndromes. How long is it before abortion is tolerated for reasons as basic as gender (already common in India and China) or hair or eye color?

This is the proverbial slippery slope that eventually ensues from living "somewhere in the middle." The apostle Paul maintains in Romans 8:7 that human nature is essentially hostile toward God and His law; it recoils from submitting to divine standards, which are, admittedly, oftentimes difficult to observe. The Bible shows that people have an innate tendency to compromise to placate the human drive to live by its own rules. Every day in myriad situations, men and women repeat the sin of Adam and Eve in the Garden (Genesis 3:1-6), rejecting God's command in order to fulfill their own desires. Seeking "truth" through compromise will only end in sin and its destructive consequences.

Fundamentally, those who seek the "truth" between extremes are playing God. They have taken upon themselves the job of determining what is right and wrong, a position that the great Sovereign of the universe has not abdicated. Truth be told, we have all been guilty of this usurpation of God's throne, and there is no time like the present to give it back to the One to whom it rightfully belongs.

This suggests that we have to adjust our thinking. Men have formulated a spectrum of choices, all of which are legitimate to human minds, yet this is not a biblical construct. The Bible reveals, not a continuum with extremes bracketing an expansive center, but a simple alternative: We can choose between God's way and the wrong way (see Deuteronomy 30:15-20). This is why God has established the process of conversion, so that over a lifetime of overcoming and growth, we can repent of our lives of compromise and begin to live by His righteous standards.

Twenty Years On

It just occurred to me that January 16, 2006, will mark the twentieth anniversary of Herbert W. Armstrong's death. I remember that day quite clearly. I was a sophomore at Ambassador College in Pasadena, California, and employed by Church Administration to assist the office in various functions (in the vernacular, I was a "gofer"). When I reported for work that morning at 8, there was a palpable feeling that something big had taken place, and it took me all of three seconds to find out that Mr. Armstrong had died earlier that morning.

His death was not unexpected, it being common knowledge that his health was rapidly declining. Joseph Tkach, the new Pastor General, quickly put a transition team into action, and plans were put into motion for announcing Mr. Armstrong's death to the church and the press, arranging his funeral, developing a tribute telecast, informing the students and employees on campus, making legal adjustments for the smooth operation of the church, and doing a host of other activities. Condolences began pouring into Pasadena from all over the world by telex and fax and phone; I remember being handed a thick stack of them and being impressed by all the "big names," both foreign and domestic, who took the trouble to relay their sympathy.

The next few days and weeks were, to me, a blur of activity, highlighted by specific events that loomed large at the time: Mr. Armstrong's funeral, the huge response figures for the tribute World Tomorrow program, the introduction of the new World Tomorrow presenters, the move "upstairs" by Joseph Tkach, the inaugural church visits around the country and the world (on one of which, to Chicago, I was permitted to go), the "We Are Family" campaign, etc. Those were heady days. The church appeared to have transitioned peacefully and prosperously to the new regime.

It did not take long for those exhilarating days to end.

Most people are unaware that the doctrinal changes began to be enacted almost immediately. It began with "little things" slipped into a Pastor General's Report or implemented without much fanfare as counsel in individual cases. The first may have been backpedaling on teaching that married women, especially those with children, should be homemakers. There were flip-flops on applauding special music and the wearing of makeup. Many of Herbert Armstrong's booklets were edited, demoted, or retired and replaced altogether. The church's teaching found in The United States and Britain in Prophecy was questioned, ridiculed, and subsequently dropped.

The first core doctrinal change—concerning faith, Christ's sacrifice, and healing—occurred in early 1987. Elements of this change were theologically correct, for instance, that sin is sin, no matter whether it is physical or spiritual in nature. However, the practical effect of the change was to remove faith from healing—and really, from anything else—to such an extent as to make it negligible. Once this major tenet of the church's teaching fell, others, like dominoes, were doomed also to fall. Soon, certain Sabbath teachings were loosened, hints of Trinitarianism began to bubble out of headquarters, and the gospel of the Kingdom of God was downgraded in favor of "the gospel of grace" and "the gospel of Jesus." All of this took place before 1992 began, and many more changes would follow.

In a relatively few years, then, the work of Herbert Armstrong, which had taken about sixty years to build, was dismantled. Certainly, a decade after his death, the Worldwide Church of God was essentially unrecognizable as the church God had raised up through him. Twenty years on, it is seeking not even to be called the "Worldwide Church of God" any longer because, in the words of Joseph Tkach, Jr., "Our current name does not properly represent us." He is right. His organization does not deserve the name!

Notwithstanding such praise, Herbert Armstrong was a fallible man, and some would argue that he made many mistakes. He was not always right, even on doctrine. His fixation on preaching the gospel, while commendable, blinded him to other areas that should have received his attention, particularly to many church members' desperate need of strong, deep instruction in God's way of life. In addition, his authoritarianism is legendary, but it was effective in promoting and accomplishing his vision of God's work on earth. A person cannot head a global evangelistic organization without these traits.

It is too bad that, for many people, his negatives overshadow his positives. He was a wonderful teacher, due in many respects to his advertising skills. He could bore right to the heart of an issue, collect what was necessary for understanding it, and explain it in simple terms so that a person of average intelligence could grasp it. Unlike many in these "nuanced" times, he was at times painfully, even offensively direct, but there was never any doubt where he stood on an issue. He was also doggedly stubborn, refusing to change a doctrine until he was absolutely convinced that the change was biblically correct. These qualities, combined with the sheer force of his charisma, kept the church's teaching relatively stable for many decades, which produced much good fruit.

William Shakespeare wrote, "The web of our life is of a mingled yarn, good and ill together." The skein of Herbert Armstrong's life contained more good yarn than ill, and for that, we can praise God that He weaves the lives of such servants into ours. Would there were more of his fiber!

A Sanitary Christmas

The winter solstice has just passed, beginning the coldest three months of the year, and this means that Christmas is only days away. It used to be that the solstice and Christmas coincided—a remarkable coincidence (wink, wink)—but because of the inexactitude of our calendar, the solstice has crept forward a few days over the past few centuries. If we were to stick around long enough, we could witness Christmas celebrated in springtime! Come to think of it, a hefty percentage of the world's population already celebrates it as the heat of summer arrives—but for reasons altogether different!

Lately, Christmas-keeping Christians have been forced to stand up for Christmas. Atheists, agnostics, and the ACLU-crowd have been clamoring for the removal of religion from Christmas celebrations. They want advertisers to market the season without reference to "Christmas," instead using the innocuous "Holiday" moniker. They want businesses to ditch playing traditional Christmas carols over their in-store audio systems in favor of "winter music"—in other words, to play "Sleigh Bells" instead of "Away in a Manger." Countless courts have weighed in—some on one side, some on the other—concerning Christmas crèches on public property. Christian groups have had to file lawsuits to force school systems to allow their students to sing "Silent Night"—and not some wintry parody—during winter concerts!

This is all extremely ironic—even hilarious at times. Christmas-celebrating Christians rush to the barricades to defend this most sacred holiday from the godless hordes, all the while totally missing the fact that they are defending the indefensible! Where is their authority to keep the day in the first place? Rome? Probably. Jerusalem? Nope. Bethlehem? Hardly. The Bible. Not a chance!

In reality, by its materialism and syncretism, this world's Christianity has helped the modern, secular world sanitize—not Santa-ize—Christmas. This supposedly Christian holiday has been systematically disinfected of its biblical "taint" simply because it is fundamentally unbiblical! Its only scriptural basis is the gospel accounts of the birth of Jesus, and they prove that the traditional Christmas teaching sits on foundation of sand.

The Nativity—a fancy word for "birth"—of Jesus Christ is found in two of the Gospels, Matthew and Luke. Try as one might, a birth date for our Savior cannot be found in either, and in fact, honest, objective scholars and theologians admit that a winter date is perhaps the least likely time. December, as any biblical geographer will attest, is the beginning of the rainy season in Palestine, and shepherds would have stopped leaving their flocks in the fields at night a good month or two before then. Majority opinion places Jesus' birth in the autumn, probably on or near the fall festivals of Trumpets or Tabernacles.

Other aspects of the traditional nativity also fail the test of biblical authenticity. For instance, the Gospels do not say that there were three wise men, nor are their names anywhere recorded in history. In this case, the number three has its source in the number of gifts the wise men gave to Jesus: gold, frankincense, and myrrh. It is certainly possible that He received other gifts from them, but Matthew decided to highlight these particular three for symbolic reasons.

Many of the manger scenes even get details wrong, like the fact that when the wise men showed up, Jesus was no longer a newborn lying in a manger, but as Matthew writes, a "young Child" living in "a house" (Matthew 2:11). Traditional Christmas crèches also tend to combine Luke's account of the shepherds' arrival almost immediately after His birth with the coming of the wise men, which evidently occurred perhaps weeks or months later (see verse 16: Some contend that it could have been as long as two years later!). And, of course, none of the Nativity participants wore halos!

These few scenes are the extent of the Bible's information about Christ's birth. Neither Mark nor John saw fit to add to what Matthew and Luke had already written. Both Mark and John begin their narratives about the time of Jesus' baptism three decades later. Why? In the grand scheme of Jesus' life, His birth is of less importance than His ministry, death, and resurrection. Certainly, it was a wonderful day when God-in-the-flesh appeared among us, but it pales in meaning to what He taught, what He sacrificed for us, and what He now does for us as our living High Priest. Why dwell on His past, helpless infancy when we can rejoice in His present, powerful advocacy?

The Christmas controversy does not hinge on whether it is politically correct to wish someone "Merry Christmas!" but on a factor that is far more significant: truth. Is Christmas true? The biblical facts shout a resounding, "NO!" Then why celebrate a lie? Falsehood is never good, never beneficial, never right. Keeping a false holiday in dedication to Jesus is still a lie. Do we really think He feels honored by a lie, which is sin (check Exodus 20:16 and Revelation 21:8; 22:15)? He receives much more honor when we, instead, keep His commandments (John 14:15; 15:10).

We can only hope that today's swirl over this holiday wakes Christians up—not just to America's eroding Christian values, but to the sad fact that what most assume to be ever-so-Christian is nothing of the sort.

Biblical Canonicity

A trip to the local Christian bookstore to buy a new Bible often turns into a dizzying experience once dozens of different translations confront the shopper. From the venerable King James Version and its successor, the New King James Version, to the helpful Amplified Bible to newcomers like the English Standard Version and the Holman Christian Standard Bible, it can make for a difficult choice. Beyond these, the shelves contain many more modern-language Bibles that are far less literal than these, such as The Living Bible, the Contemporary English Version, the Good News Bible, Today’s English Version, etc. It is enough to make one’s head spin! (See “Which Bible Translation Is Best?”)

Yet, many people ask an even more fundamental question: How do we know that the 66 books included in most Bibles are truly authorized as part of the canon, the authoritative collection of inspired Scripture? How can we be sure that we have the complete Word of God?

It is a good question. Most people believe that the early Catholic Church decided which books were authentic, and we have just received the results of its decision. This, however, is not true. The Catholic Church did not authorize the biblical canon—it only accepted it. The Bible has its own internal authorization protocols that the Catholic Church merely followed, and subsequently, most others also accepted. It is evident from the agreement of the 5,000 extant, ancient copies of the New Testament that the canon was already set before the Catholic Church put its stamp of approval on it.

Actually, only a few books now regarded as Scripture ever raised any questions regarding canonicity: James, Jude, II Peter, and II and III John (all disputed due to questions of authorship). All of them are attested in early writings as authoritative. In fact, it has been shown that the “early church fathers” quoted from the canonical books so much that, if the Bible somehow ceased to exist, it could be reassembled in full, minus just a handful of verses, using only their writings. Officially, by ad 140, the visible church (we could call it the proto-Catholic Church) recognized all fourteen of Paul's letters plus all four gospels. The first historical list of all 27 New Testament books dates to ad 367. The Catholic Church did not officially ratify them (by papal decree) until ad 405.

As mentioned above, the Bible contains internal authorization protocols. The most esoteric may be the prophecy in Isaiah 8:16: "Bind up the testimony, seal the law among my disciples.” The early church understood this to mean that the canon would be "bound," that is, finished and authorized, by the time the original twelve apostles had died. The apostle John was the last of the original Twelve to die (around ad 100), and it is supposed that he gathered the present 27 New Testament books together and authorized their use in the churches.

The Bible itself provides a clue that Peter had already begun some of this canonization many years earlier (as early as the mid-ad 60s). II Peter 3:15-16 suggests that Paul's epistles had already attained the status of Scripture by that time (see another hint of a collecting of Paul’s epistles by Paul himself in II Timothy 4:13). It is easy to assume that this may also embrace Luke's Gospel and Acts (Luke was Paul’s longtime assistant). If Peter had indeed begun the canonization process, both of his epistles and the gospel of Mark (understood to be written under Peter's direction) can also be included. This now makes nineteen authorized books. Later, John would include his Gospel, Revelation, and three epistles, making a total of 24 books.

The only questionable books, then, would be Matthew's Gospel, James, and Jude—and there are no legitimate, canonical problems with them, as all three were written by apostles (two of them Jesus’ half-brothers!). This brings up another of the protocols for canonicity: The authorship of a book must be apostolic (exceptions are made for the writings of Luke and Mark, as they were considered to be written under Paul’s and Peter’s direct supervision).

Perhaps the most important protocol for canonicity, though, is what is termed “internal unity,” sometimes called conformity to the "rule of faith." It is evident that the New Testament books agree on doctrine, Christian living, history, and prophecy. They contain internal unity; they are a whole in 27 parts. Other books or epistles—for instance, the Gospel of Thomas or the Epistles of Clement, which have been suggested as canonical—disturb this unity. Many books have been written to show that the canonical Bible does not contradict itself, particularly in areas of doctrine.

A final rule of canonicity is general acceptance by the church. While there were differences among the congregations about which books were to be read in the churches, they all agreed on these 27 books. Eventually, the others were found wanting, and the present 27 were authorized. Again, we should note that all this took place before the rise of the organized Catholic Church in the second century.

The 39 books of the Old Testament have undergone similar tests of canonicity. A few books, such as Esther and parts of Daniel, have been questioned, but in the end, their reliability has been universally recognized. Though some churches accept the Apocrypha—the books of Maccabees, Esdras, the Wisdom of Solomon, Tobit, Bel and the Dragon, etc.—even a quick perusal of their texts proves them to be of lesser quality and worth than the accepted books. In addition, the biblical books found among the Dead Sea Scrolls attest to the precision of their transmission through the ages. Thus, scholarly debate on Old Testament canonicity has largely subsided to minor disputes on peripheral matters.

There is no valid reason to doubt the authoritative nature of the 66 books of the Bible. What has come down to us is God’s “prophetic word made more sure” (II Peter 1:19), “given by inspiration of God” (II Timothy 3:16). We can absolutely trust what is written in it to guide us along the narrow way to the Kingdom of God.