Institute for Christian Culture

Recent years have seen unrelenting assaults on the public display of Christian images at Christmas. The Whitehouse (and other governmental agencies) and major retailers have substituted “Happy Holidays” for “Merry Christmas,” even renaming “Christmas” trees to “Holiday” trees. Courtesy of the ACLU, there is also the ever popular “traditional” holiday game of finding and eradicating local nativity displays. And then of course, there are the many examples of public school children being forced to change the words from “Silent Night” to “Cold Light” so they can sing in a “Winter Festival” pageant. Even the Salvation Army has come under attack as their aid workers have been denied access to the sidewalks outside of certain department stores.

Some of the attacks on Christmas use a more indirect approach by trying to elevate “pseudo” or “wannabe” holidays” such as “Kwanza” and “Chanukah” as a part of the national celebration. I really do not mean to be offensive here but am at a loss for better ways to describe these “holidays.”

Chanukah, (the “Festival of Lights)” is a legitimate part of the Jewish liturgical calendar commemorating the great miracle in purifying the temple after its defilement by the Greeks. But in terms of religious importance it is the “St. Crispin’s Day” of Judaism; a non-Biblical, uninspired (i.e., God did not command it), minor historical celebration. In terms of the great Jewish “holy days” of Passover and Yom Kippur, Chanukah is simply, religiously, insignificant. Christians celebrate Christmas because it is the pivotal moment in human history where God became flesh and dwelt among us. Jews celebrate Chanukah as a reminder of God’s providence in preserving their religion and culture. The two simply do not compare in terms of importance.

Does anyone seriously believe that Chanukah would have any prominence if it did not happen to coincide with the Christian celebration of Christmas? I suspect that the only reason that the forces of Political Correctness require us to recognize Chanukah at all is that Jewish kids were pushing their parents for some of the external things that make Christmas so popular. Let us be honest; we have a Christian celebration with special music, decorated trees, colorful lights, wonderful presents all celebrating “peace on earth and good will to men. They have a minor Jewish “ritual” that consists of lighting some candles and playing with a dradle! Of course Jewish kids feel as if they are getting the short end of the stick!

Kwanza on the other hand is a purely invented “holiday” created by a 1960’s radical who wanted an African alternative to “Christmas.” There is nothing inherently wrong in trying to connect with one’s historical and cultural roots; however, Kwanza was not derived from any actual African celebration, religion or custom. Africa is a large continent with a wide variety of religions, traditions and practices, most of which would not sit well in any modern Western nation (can we say, “ritual scarification”). There certainly was no celebration on the same level as “Christmas.” So one was created and we are supposed to respect it as a legitimate expression of African-American culture. To call Kwanza what it is (a made up holiday that would have been nothing more than an irrelevant reference in African American Studies classes until the media started pushing it) risks being labeled as a racist.

While not a conspiracy type, I suspect that both Chanukah and Kwanza are being deliberately promoted not on their own merits (i.e., as legitimate, important religious celebrations on the level of Christmas), but rather as just another subtle attack on the overt, public display of Christianity that comes with Christmas every year. In effect, we are being told that since there are other, “religious” winter festivals that people celebrate, therefore, Christmas must not be given any precedence in the public square. The fact that in one case, Kwanza, there is no religious significance, or that with Chanukah, the number of Jews who actually celebrate it as a religious (rather than as simply a cultural expression of being Jewish) “holiday” (and a relatively insignificant one at that), is irrelevant. No weapon is to be left unused in the war against Christianity and its most popular public expression.

As a result, many Christian leaders are outraged and outspoken on the need to “save” Christmas. In the past, these same leaders often argued against the commercialization of Christmas; now however the demon to be fought is a self-conscious attempt to completely “secularize” the celebration by removing ALL Christian references. Consequently, many leaders are locked and loaded, “drawing a line in the sand,” exhorting the Christian community to actively battle to “save” Christmas. President Bush once came under enormous fire for his comments when lighting the national “holiday tree” for saying something to the effect “we remember how one humble person can change the world-Thank you Santa!” For what it is worth, I think the President’s comment was brilliant, intentional satire, recognizing the forces that would attempt to deny Jesus as Lord by showing their absurdity. I think he was misunderstood here and some people need to develop a sense of humor. Clearly, Christmas is the most important holiday in American culture; watered down, secularized, debased and distorted as it may be. But in some dim way, it always points back to Jesus and that the secularists cannot stand.

President Bush was not the only one to receive flak on the way he acknowledged the importance of Christmas in American culture. In one incident several years ago, a staffer for the governor of Georgia mistakenly sent out an “official” “Happy Holidays” email only to have the email subsequently repudiated by the Governor. The Governor wanted his constituency to know that HE wished them a “Merry Christmas” and suggested that all complaints be sent directly to the now disgraced staffer who was sent to “Alaska” as punishment! Now, there is a man with a sense of humor!

The vehement response to these political figures demonstrates that Christians see the attacks on Christmas as inherently an attack on Christianity. Believers are finally catching on that the most recent attempt to remove “Christ” from “Christmas” is more than just political correctness gone to a ridiculous extreme - but the end result of a systematic assault against the visible symbols of Christian faith in American society. The Humanists have already taken over the public schools and universities we built, absorbed the hospitals, orphanages and welfare services we began, and they have successfully cowered judges and law-makers from acknowledging Christ as the source of American morality. The ONLY visible expressions of Christianity left in American culture is the motto “In God We Trust” on our money and the national celebration of “Christmas;” and now they will not be satisfied until these are gone too.

Thus by “secularizing” Christmas, the Humanist agenda is shoving Christianity into a purely subjective, inner sphere of life that no matter how personally meaningful or significant, is simply irrelevant and inappropriate in the public sphere of life. Confusion in the popular mind already exists between “Christmas” as a religious celebration and “Christmas” as a mid-winter, non-religious festival. We saw just one small example of this when we tried to buy a “Christmas” CD. Literally, there were stacks and stacks of “Christmas” music from almost every artist imaginable (and if you haven’t heard the “Rap” version of favorite Christmas tunes you haven’t lived!). However, on the same album right along with “Joy to the World” and “Silent Night” were “Frosty the Snowman,” “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer” and “Santa Claus is Coming to Town.” In other words, both religious AND secular music were intermixed and treated as equally about “Christmas.” The inevitable end result was that the “religious” aspects become simply nostalgic; of no more real significance than Californians, who have never shivered through a Northern winter, appreciating “White Christmas.”

As those who are dedicated to proclaiming and living the crown rights of King Jesus, the question becomes “what SHOULD be our response to both the subtle as well as the overt attacks against Christmas?” What should we think about what is happening in the broader culture; more importantly, what should we be doing about it?

Christmas is NOT a Biblical “Holy-Day” Colossians 2:26-29

As we all know, Christmas, while a “Christian” holiday (“holy day”) is not a Biblical one. The Lord God never commanded, endorsed, suggested or specifically approved of recognizing a “special” day to celebrate the birth of His Son, Jesus. The only day that we are required to keep “holy” is the Lord’s Day, Sunday. For some Reformed Christians, this one simple, often neglected fact is all that is necessary to renounce the entire idea of Christmas and move on to more important issues.

And of course, they have a point. While the origins of “Christmas” as a religious festival are murky, we do know that the “Feast of the Nativity” was apparently celebrated secretly before it became “official” in the fifth century (see “Rethinking the Pagan Origins of Christmas”). After the nominal Christianization of the Empire, it became a required feast day in the Roman church; however, the Roman “holy day” has almost nothing in common with our modern celebration.

In so far as I have been able to determine from research (and the sources themselves are often confused), a strong case can be made that every single distinctive practice associated with our modern celebration of Christmas was a self-conscious creation of the Victorians. Trees, ornaments, lights, holly, mistletoe, cards, even presents were all essentially unknown until the middle of the 19th century when the Romantic Victorians began associating them with what had previously been a simple part of the Roman, Anglican and Lutheran liturgical year; and they did so specifically to “create” a festive season for their children.

The only actual parts of a “traditional Christmas” that have any historical connection are (1) certain “carols” concerning the incarnation that came to be reserved for “Christmas” and (2) an annual tradition of drunkenness and gluttony associated with the religious “feast” day. However, please do not confuse the first Christmas “carolers” with our modern sanitized church people; originally, “Carolers” were actually gangs of drunken louts who went from house to house demanding free drinks (which gives the old song “Here we go a wassailing…” a whole different context).

The English and Scottish traditions of drunkenness and rioting were so disreputable that the Puritans and Presbyterians banned the celebration of Christmas. Granted, the early British Reformers were also against anything in the old Roman liturgical calendar because there was no Biblical basis for binding men’s consciences that certain days were somehow more “holy” or “special” than others. From historical records we can fairly confidently state that Christmas was not celebrated in the colonies or the early Republic by other than a few Roman Catholics and Episcopalians as a part of the liturgical calendar. If you look for anything like a “traditional” Christmas celebration in the 17th and 18th century American experience, you simply will not find it.

Thus the question that needs to be asked is; “Why are Christians so offended by the secularists and the humanists attacking a ‘holiday’ that in effect has no more religious, historical or spiritual significance than Kwanza?” Look, I made some fairly critical comments about “Kwanza” earlier but in reality, is the modern celebration of Christmas all that different? Christmas went from a fairly obscure feast day in Roman Catholic, Lutheran and Episcopal churches (all three of which were tiny, almost insignificant influences in American culture until the latter part of the 19th century). Then, literally, within a decade or so, Presbyterian, Congregationalist and Baptist churches picked up the celebration and then created all the customs and traditions we associate with Christmas today. Yet, within just a few years of inventing the modern celebration of Christmas, the Victorians were already complaining of its “commercialization” and that it was losing its “meaning.”

This has been a recurring theme ever since. Miracle on 34th Street (the original version with Natalie Wood) is a beloved “classic” holiday film made back in the 1940’s about losing the Christmas “Spirit.” And every year, TV constantly bombards us with variations of “holiday specials” wherein someone has to “save” Christmas. Since Christ is never mentioned in these films, what “spirit” is it exactly that all these people want to save?

Is Christmas Even Worthy of Being Saved?

Perhaps it is time for Christians to ask (since we invented this holiday) whether it even worth saving? Think I am being too cynical; well just consider that when Christmas falls on a Sunday, many mega-churches actually cancel their services since it would conflict with people’s celebration of Christmas! The hypocrisy here is astounding! Christians invent a “holiday” to celebrate the incarnation, create a whole series of customs and traditions to supposedly remember the Savior’s birth, but when it conflicts with actually worshipping God on His day as He commands, why we stay home so we can unwrap our presents! The Mega-churches are not being anti-Christian, just recognizing that if they held services with the type of people that they attract, nobody would come! And since so many Christian pastors and elders want THEIR churches to be mega-churches, one really does have to wonder whether the problem is Christmas, or the kind of Christians the modern church is producing?

Thus, let me suggest that perhaps the real issue has nothing to do with the secularist trying to ban Christmas but rather that Christians refuse to actually stand for anything! If Christians are so lazy and self-indulgent that they will not even go to church on Christmas, then why expect them to act as salt and light in the world? We are losing the symbols of Christ in the culture, because we have already lost the reality of Christ in our churches.

Hence, removing Christmas from the public square is not the problem; it is the modern day sub-Biblical understanding and application of the Christian faith. First, we allowed our consciences to be bound to a religious celebration that has no Biblical warrant. Then we allowed the retailers to crassly commercialize that “holy day” by willingly giving ourselves over to indulgence. Now, we are at the point where some Christians are upset about the secular world attempting to remove Christian Christmas symbols!

Christmas since its inception, has always been about self indulgence, thinly covered with a “spiritual” veneer of Christianity. In earlier times, it was gluttony and drunkenness. The romantic and highly sentimental Victorians cleaned this up a bit and repackaged it so they could dote on their children (which social mores at the time would otherwise prohibit). The birth of Christ provided a religiously acceptable means of giving into this “indulgence.” However, the law of unintended consequences came into play as the children grew up and started their own families. They wanted to recapture something of the “magic” and “lost” innocence of childhood and ended up over-compensating with conspicuous consumption. Hence (though I can already hear the screams of “Scrooge”) I am suggesting that at heart, the modern celebration of Christmas has never really been about Christ but always about, well, an excuse to celebrate!

Thus, the Victorians created religious rituals to disguise and justify a form of self-indulgence; rituals which we have inherited. It is these rituals that are now under attack from the secularists and God-haters who nevertheless have already accepted the substance of “Christmas” by having parties and presents and trees and decorations. For example, the Japanese have enthusiastically adopted all the secular symbols and practices of Christmas without any relationship to the birth of Christ what-so-ever!

So really, the battle is not about saving “Christmas” but rather rescuing the last remnants of a Victorian religious veneer consisting of certain customs and rituals they used to justify creating a sentimental celebration for their children. Now, religious ritual, even good rituals are at best a type, a shadow or a picture of the ultimate reality of God in Christ. Paganism creates idols, false religions and even practice the occult as a way of suppressing the truth about God that is clearly evident to all men in all ages (Rms 1:18-20).

Christians are susceptible to this same temptation by creating new religious rituals that make us feel a certain way and then offer those “feelings” to God, expecting Him to like it or lump it (like Cain offering fruits and vegetables when a blood sacrifice was required). Sometimes, we even borrow rituals from pagan religions, thinking that somehow God will be satisfied (as in syncretism, idolatry, etc.). However, Biblically, Christ forbids all man-made religion as a way to approach Him. He Himself provided all the “rituals” He desires (and we need) in the Lord’s Supper and Baptism; and He consecrated the only day He wants specially kept.

However, we sinners do not want to worship God in Spirit and Truth; no we want something more; something mystical, something magical, something “meaningful.” Years ago, when I was so much younger and far more naïve, I was ministering in a broad evangelical church that had a strong tradition of sentimental Christmas Eve services. It was a moderately successful church as such things go with choirs, talented musicians and the like. Since I was the new pastor, I thought I had to WOW them for my first “Christmas” special. So, using my theatre background, I designed a candle-lit, choral service with choirs, soloists, instrumentalists and “dramatic” readings all designed for maximum psychological effect (i.e., this music will generate that response, which when added to this dramatic reading will build to that intended emotional response). We ended with the lights slowly being turned down while the congregation sang “Silent Night.” Then, starting in the front, I lit a candle and used that to light a candle being held by someone in the front row - who then lit the candle of another, who lit another, etc. As the “house” lights dimmed to total darkness, the lights from the candles spread from the front of the sanctuary to the back. By the end of the hymn, people were openly weeping and no one said a word as they exited the building.

Yup, I sure wowed them; apparently people talked about that service for years. However, it pains me to say, that most of that congregation loved religion, but hated Christ. You see the real problem is that many “Christians” confuse their feelings about Jesus, with actually loving and obeying Him. If a worship service, a religious ritual and yes, even a Christmas celebration makes them feel a certain way, then by their definition, it is good, proper and holy. Of course the Biblical test is whether or not a person is changed from a self-oriented, Christ-denying rebel into a humble, Christ obeying saint. And friends, Christmas, no matter how wonderful it may make you feel, simply cannot do what so many of us want and expect from it. Only Christ, through His Spirit can bring a spiritually dead heart to life and fill that person with peace and wisdom and goodness.

Thus, Christians do not need to battle to “save Christmas” but rather simply proclaim the crown rights of King Jesus over every area of life. When we learn to tremble at His word, repent from our self-absorption, cry out for mercy and then, by His Spirit, bring every thought and action captive to Him (2 Cor 10:4-5), THEN the lights, the decorations and the presents can become another way of enjoying His gracious blessings. We do not have to “save Christmas” but restore the historic Christian message that Jesus is Lord.

Conclusion

Thus far this essay has been fairly critical of Christmas and many Reformed brothers have and will continue to argue that as a “holiday,” it is innately and irreparably flawed and must be abandoned. However, as I have written elsewhere, as long as we do not bind another’s conscience, celebrating the birth of Christ cannot be inherently unlawful even if He did not command us to do so; we celebrate the births of our children, our spouses and our friends with joy, thanksgiving and appreciation-surely we may lawfully do the same with the Son of God. Recognizing formally that God became flesh and dwelt among us is basic, orthodox Christianity. Singing “Joy to the World” is inherently a postmillennial hymn looking in faith to the inevitable spread of His kingdom. Having a Christmas tree in one’s home is NOT idolatry (unless of course one is tempted to bow down before it; but in so far as I know that has not been a problem even in Mega-churches). Buying presents for loved ones, giving special gifts to the needy and enjoying a season of celebration is not a sin and recognized as such even by such anti-Christmas documents as the Westminster Confession! (Remember the Puritans who hated Christmas and banned it whenever possible did NOT write those bans into their most comprehensive creed!). Remember, God required Israel to TITHE every year to finance their religious celebrations before the Lord; and the most extravagant Christian probably does not come near spending 10% of his income on Christmas!

However, if we think that by doing ANY of these things, somehow we bring Christ closer, or are more acceptable to Him or in some way make our worship of Him more effectual, then we are self-deceived. Yes, Christmas services (and hopefully even sometimes, Christmas essays) can be rich, meaningful and significant; but Jesus is the Christ every day of the year. No, there is nothing religiously special about Christmas or Christmas services; yet even so, we ought to be able to celebrate our Lord’s blessings, give gifts to our family and friends, and enjoy the blessings that come so freely from the hand of a kind, providential God without having to create some sort of “religious” ritual to justify it. And once we start LIVING like Christians, we will not have to fight to preserve the empty symbols of it.

Rethinking the Pagan Origins of Christmas

Reformed believers have never liked Christmas. The Regulative Principle states that what God has not commanded in worship, is forbidden; since there is no command to celebrate Christmas, many Reformed folks think Christians shouldn’t either. The more historically minded will cite the Puritans and Presbyterians who denounced Christmas and banned it when they could. Some will even seriously insist that Christmas is really a Popish plot to seduce Protestants back into Romanism. Furthermore, they often point out that most of our Christmas traditions derive from pagan sources and surely, no right-thinking Christian would want to participate in an essentially, idolatrous celebration, would they?

Yet many other Christians, without a particular theological axe to grind, are also very uncomfortable with celebrating Christmas. Every year I get at least one email or letter from some concerned reader quoting those verses in Jeremiah about the foolish idolater who cuts down a tree and worships it. And I am not above criticism here; a number of years ago I wrote an article for a national magazine explaining how most of our Christmas traditions actually arose out of Roman and Celtic nature worship.

I first began my campaign to “expose” the “pagan origins” of Christmas back in the early seventies. Fairly quickly after becoming a believer I discovered that many Christians actually knew very little about their faith. They took certain things for granted (things that I had struggled to understand) and seemed unwilling to think through their faith. I rather enjoyed debunking this most sentimental of holidays to smug, self-satisfied Christians who never thought about why they were doing, what they were doing. The Apostle Paul warned about those who thought they knew something (1 Cor 8:1) because even a little knowledge can make a man arrogant. And, to be honest, there was more than a little arrogance on my part over the years when I would sit down with someone and take an unholy delight in telling them that all their holiday traditions were little more than demonic inspired pagan rituals baptized with the thinnest veneer of “Popish” Christianity.

However, as I have had a chance to read more, think more and reconsider whether the dubious pleasures of being cynical, condescending and self-righteous is worth the cost of God’s eternal judgment (it isn’t): eventually I concluded that I needed to re-think these issues from the bottom up. First, there is a legitimate theological question on whether or not it is ethically appropriate for Christians to celebrate Christmas, since we have no explicit command to do so. But as I am going to try and demonstrate in this essay, in reality, MOST of the reasons given against Christmas are misinformed at best; and sometimes are mere rationalizations to justify something a bit unsavory in our characters. So if you think you already KNOW all about “Christmas” and its “pagan past” maybe I can help you to rethink some things.

Historical Origins

When people debunk Christmas, usually they begin with calling the date into question. It is often said that while no one is sure exactly when the Lord Jesus was born, it probably wasn’t in December since shepherds did not keep flocks outside during the winter therefore, being no need to watch them. So how did we arrive at December 25 as Christmas? The traditional debunker’s answer is that the early church chose December twenty-fifth because it was part of the Roman holiday of Saturnalia, a celebration of the birth of the unconquerable Sun god.

At this point, the reasonably astute scholar will cite sociological or psychological factors demonstrating the widespread celebrations of the winter solstice in European pagan cultures. For example, in primitive times, winter was always the low point of the year; the harvests were all in, and no further sources of food would be available until the next harvest. If the harvest was not sufficient, starvation was inevitable Furthermore, modern research only now is beginning to understand the serious physiological and psychological effects of the lack of sunlight.

The pagan presupposition of the prime nature of reality meant that the gradual darkening of the days until the winter solstice was an implicit threat that spring might never come. Supposedly, somewhere in the dim, dark past when our ancestors squatted in caves and the height of erudite conversation consisted of “Ug,” they feared that the spring would never return. Often, human sacrifices were made to ensure that the days would again lengthen and spring with its new life would return. And sure enough, once the sacrifices were made, the days starting getting longer again! Thus it is said that many pagan cultures over time, developed the custom to celebrate some sort of midwinter festival; a festival that came down to us as (dire music here) Christmas!

However, let’s think about this for a moment shall we? This approach is based essentially on an evolutionary presupposition about the origins and development of human culture. Winter solstice festivals, especially in Northern Europe are assumed to evolve out of the recurring fear that the world was headed into eternal winter and therefore, when the days began to lengthen, and enough food was on hand to provide assurance of surviving until spring, it became a time of celebration. Rome is assumed to have had this same tradition and being a civilized and depraved society, turned it into a rowdy orgy. Gifts were freely exchanged, slaves often exchanged places with their masters for the day, and drunkenness and debauchery were common.

Most Christmas detractors cite the above as reason enough to regard celebrating the nativity as just another example of the Church compromising with paganism. There is some merit here; there is ample evidence that the Roman church “baptized” some aspects of pagan religion and made them a part of the faith. The question for us though is whether they did this to create Christmas?

New research is coming out that is overturning this “traditional” view of the holiday’s origins. First, some writers seem to jump between what may have been certain Celtic or Norse traditions and Roman ones without really thinking about the differences. The Mediterranean winter is considerably different than the ones experienced in Northern Europe and it is unlikely that different environmental factors would have resulted in similar social customs; i.e., there is a big difference in surviving a frozen winter in Northern Germany and a wet, but reasonably warm winter in Rome! Yet, debunkers switch between the two traditions without really seeming to appreciate the differences between the cultures.

Secondly, the assumption that Christians “baptized” a pagan holiday appears to be the work of two scholars each with an axe to grind. Paul Ernst Jablonski, a German Protestant, wanted to show that the celebration of Christ’s birth on December 25th was one of the many “paganizations” transforming “pure” apostolic Christianity into Roman Catholicism. Since he was already predisposed to hate Christmas (and Catholicism), he sought arguments why Christians should not celebrate it; attributing its origins to paganism is an effective way to poison the well. The second scholar was a Roman Catholic, Dom Jean Hardouin, a Benedictine monk, who tried to show that the Catholic Church adopted pagan festivals for Christian purposes without paganizing the gospel.

However, there is now available good evidence that rather than Christians copying a pagan festival, that the Romans actually copied the celebration of Christmas from Christians! The below quote is quite long but well worth the read.

“But in fact, the date [December 25th] had no religious significance in the Roman pagan festal calendar before Aurelian’s time, nor did the cult of the sun play a prominent role in Rome before him. There were two temples of the sun in Rome, one of which (maintained by the clan into which Aurelian was born or adopted) celebrated its dedication festival on August 9th, the other of which celebrated its dedication festival on August 28th. But both of these cults fell into neglect in the second century, when eastern cults of the sun, such as Mithraism, began to win a following in Rome. And in any case, none of these cults, old or new, had festivals associated with solstices or equinoxes.

As things actually happened, Aurelian, who ruled from 270 until his assassination in 275, was hostile to Christianity and appears to have promoted the establishment of the festival of the “Birth of the Unconquered Sun” as a device to unify the various pagan cults of the Roman Empire around a commemoration of the annual “rebirth” of the sun. He led an empire that appeared to be collapsing in the face of internal unrest, rebellions in the provinces, economic decay, and repeated attacks from German tribes to the north and the Persian Empire to the east.

In creating the new feast, he intended the beginning of the lengthening of the daylight, and the arresting of the lengthening of darkness, on December 25th to be a symbol of the hoped-for “rebirth,” or perpetual rejuvenation, of the Roman Empire, resulting from the maintenance of the worship of the gods whose tutelage (the Romans thought) had brought Rome to greatness and world-rule. If it co-opted the Christian celebration, so much the better.”

Thus rather than Christians adopting some pagan festival, it looks as if the pagans stole one from us! The old evolutionary assumption of primitive, superstitious pagans creating a festival back in the dim dawn of human history in response to misunderstood environmental forces must give way to an advanced culture intentionally creating a religious celebration for purely civil purposes. Therefore the widespread assumption is that Christmas is just a baptized version of “Saturnalia” is not historically maintainable.

It has been argued that the “Feast of the Nativity” seems to have sprung full blown in the fourth century (AD 336); yet a moment’s reflection shows that this assumption is unwarranted. It implies a degree of centrality of power that the Church would not have until many centuries later. The fourth century church was not the monolithic institution it became in the late Middle Ages; the “pope” at this point was simply the bishop of Rome. Therefore to assume that a brand new feast could be created out of whole cloth and imposed on the entire church is stretching things a bit.

Furthermore, in days before newspapers, magazines and other forms of mass communication, if a festival appears suddenly with liturgies and traditions already in place, then it is highly unlikely that it is something new. It is more probably that the festival had been celebrated quietly for a long time before it became publicly acceptable. Remember, the real reason why Christianity was suppressed under the Roman Empire, was for civil, not theological reasons. Rome required an annual sacrifice to the Emperor recognizing him as “Lord;” the ultimate connection between heaven and earth. Christians could not in conscience offer a pinch of incense to a statue of the Emperor and call him “Lord” because Jesus, and Jesus alone was Lord. Thus, Christianity was seen as a revolutionary movement and its members as traitors to the Empire.

In antiquity, celebrating the birthday of the King or Emperor was more than just a social custom, but an important political reality; it demonstrated one’s allegiance and submission to the civil order. Thus for Christians to openly celebrate the birth of Christ would have been to invite intense persecution because the culture of the day would have seen it as a treasonable act. Hence, the nativity was not openly celebrated for several hundred years.

Yet, when Christianity became legal in the fourth century, the church fathers openly admitted that Christmas had been recognized and celebrated for a very long time-and that December 25 was widely held to be the Lord’s birthday (and thanks to Valerie Jacobson for doing the research on these).

Augustine (354-430) of Hippo, On the Psalms, Psalm 133 “…For from Christ comes the dew. No light is set on a high place, save Christ. How is He set on high? First on the cross, afterwards in heaven. Set on high on the cross when He was humbled; humbled, but His humiliation could not but be high. The ministry of man grew less and less, as was signified in John; the ministry of God in our Lord Jesus Christ increased, as was shown at their birth. The former was born, as the tradition of the Church shows, on the 24th of June, when the days begin to shorten. The Lord was born on the 25th of December, when the days begin to lengthen…”

Augustine also specifically titled one of his points of Sermon 22, “The Festival Has Nothing to Do with Sun-worship, as Some Maintain.” Thus, in the late fourth century, Augustine both refuted that Christmas had its origins in Saturnalia while also clearly attributing the Lord’s birth to December 25th as the “tradition of the church.” Why December 25? Well, the argument is too long and complex to go into here except to say that it had to do with trying to reconcile Roman and Jewish calendars; a headache for everyone involved. Furthermore, Christians at the time had certain theological presuppositions that governed how they actually dated certain events; they assumed a relationship between the death of the Lord Jesus and when He would have been born; and by carefully calculating the dates of certain “known” events, they arrived at December 25th as the day of His birth. Whether their calculations were based on a sound basis is really immaterial; the point is that the Lord’s birth was not celebrated just because it coincided with a Roman pagan festival. Their calculations might have been wrong, but they were not blindly being subverted by pagan influences or accommodation to cultural norms.

Despite this, many debunkers insist that when the gospel penetrated Northern Europe, many of those winter solstice customs found their way into Christmas celebrations, thus unwittingly introducing paganism into the church. Again, this is not quite so easy to determine as some have assumed. Granted, there was a tradition of a religious and cultural customs of feasting and merry making that had long been a part of European culture, but how much of the actual customs and traditions actually derived from pagan sources just cannot be determined. Did the pagans influence Christians or did Christians influence the pagans? Which came first?

For example, St. Boniface is usually credited with the idea of “Christmas trees” as he cut down Druid groves and secured the decorated trees in Christian homes to prevent pagans from worshipping them. So, does the “custom” of having Christmas trees come from pagan, Druid tree worship, or is it a Christian custom? Or is there even another explanation altogether?

Christmas as the Creation of the Victorians

Most people assume that our current Christmas customs come down from pagan history, passed down from generation to generation with their origins being lost in the mist of times (until the debunkers write articles exposing the pagan origins of Christmas). However, what few Christians seem to appreciate is that almost ALL of our modern day Christmas traditions only came into existence in the 19th century when Queen Victoria brought her new German husband, Albert, to England. Albert introduced Christmas trees to English and American homes. Germans had a long history of Christmas trees that was unknown in Britain; in fact Martin Luther is usually credited with putting the first lights on trees to show his children the glory of God he witnessed one night by glimpsing stars through the trees one dark night. Albert brought this custom to England, and suddenly, everyone else wanted Christmas trees to!

If you remember your Dickens, try to reconcile the “traditional” Christmas celebration of today, with what happened in Ebenezer Scrooge’s experience. Despite the cultural differences between middle 19th century England and modern America, is there anything in Dickens that looks like our Christmas? Scrooge is vilified because he is a miser who takes no joy in life, lives in a cold, unheated home, eats gruel and only grudgingly gives his workers the day off. After his “conversion” he buys Bob Cratchet a goose and eats dinner with his nephew (at least I think that is what happened; I’ve seen too many movies to distinguish between the book and film versions). But notice; in Dickens, there is no tree, no presents, no mistletoe, holly, ivy, etc. There is no Santa Claus and the holiday has nothing to do with children. When a film version is made of the “Christmas Carol” the director has to inserts all these elements because that is what we expect “Christmas” to be like; but in original tale, they are conspicuously absent. The story is in reality about a grumpy, nasty old man learning how to lighten up, become a bit more cheerful and nice to others while enjoying a feast with his family.

Victoria and Albert’s Christmas celebration changed all that when it was popularized in a British magazine. Literally, within a decade, a whole new tradition was created, almost out of whole cloth. Christmas became popular and new customs were invented to make it a “richer” and more “traditional” celebration. There is even evidence that some people self-consciously tried to create the appearance that certain symbols were ancient ways to celebrate Christmas, just to give the new holiday some sort of authenticity and credibility. Thus mistletoe, holly, ivy, wreathes, etc., all within just a decade or two, were deliberately chosen as Christmas “symbols” and accepted by the public just because they gave the feeling of antiquity (and authenticity). In fact, an argument can be made that it was only later on that some scholars made a connection between these symbols and how some ancient pagans might have used them. But the connection is tenuous at best; it is simply inaccurate to say that somehow these customs originated in ancient pagan religion and survived down into the present time. In reality, they were not a common part of Christmas celebrations until the late 19th century! Thus our modern celebration of Christmas has NO direct connection with ancient pagan religion or their symbols because most of what defines a “traditional” Christmas was in fact deliberately and self-consciously created by the Victorians!

Santa Claus or Satan Claws?

Even the history of the much maligned Santa Claus who began life as a Celtic version of Bacchus, the god of wine and drunkenness is not quite what you think. In England, going back to the Dark Ages, traveling groups of actors made a living by putting on various religious plays. One of the favorite recurring characters that showed up around Christmas time was “Father Christmas” who was portrayed as a crude, drunken, lecherous individual. He was a comic relief kind of character, and probably was in fact intended to be a Christian ridicule of ancient pagan religion and excesses. He was never taken seriously, never honored and he certainly was not the sort of person you would want to dangle your children on his lap.

However, though there is some connection between “Father Christmas” (as he is still called in England) and Santa Claus, the two are still distinct individuals. Santa is a creation of good old American ingenuity and is an amalgamation of a number of different European traditions, “Father Christmas” being only one dim source for the legend. The Dutch who settled New York had their traditions of “Saint Nicolas,” a fourth century bishop who had a special affection for little children. “Nicholas” was far more influential in creating the myth of “Santa Claus” than “Father Christmas.” In fact, it is likely that the British inflated their traditional “Father Christmas” as their own version of the American “Santa Claus” (the Brits are very sensitive about American cultural subversion).

But most of what constitutes the “Santa Claus tradition” was actually the result of an invented, fictional character no more intended to be considered “authentic” or as a tie to Christmas past than Superman! The point being is that there was no history of some jolly old elf who gave toys to good little boys and girls until what’s his name wrote “The Night before Christmas.” Identifying Santa Claus with “Father Christmas” or “St. Nicholas” is revisionist history pure and simple; an attempt to give some credibility and historicity to a created character intended to be no more real than Winnie the Pooh!

And so for all the rest of the “traditional” customs that are so often associated with paganism. So what if a Christmas wreaths looks like the sign of Oromous: the snake that swallows its own tail (hence a pagan symbol of eternity, i.e., a circle has no beginning or end) or that Christmas colors are red and green, both of which had profound magical meaning in ancient cultures. So what if the first “Christmas” trees were originally literally living idols, or that holly and ivy had some association with Druid worship, or that mistletoe, according to ancient Nordic myths, was placed over marriage beds so that the couple might be fruitful and bear many children. None of these “symbols” were in fact commonly observed until the Victorians decided to invent a whole new holiday and needed things that would make Christmas look “traditional.”

Why Have Some Christians Hated Christmas?

So if Christmas is so innocent, why were the Puritans and Presbyterians in the 17th century so opposed to its celebration? We must never forget that we are all subject to historical conditioning; that the events we see around us can and do have a profound effect on our perceptions and ideas. Please let us all keep in mind that “Christmas” has always consisted of two distinct aspects; a religious observance combined with a completely secular winter festival. The Puritans and Presbyterians had serious problems with both.

The English Reformers insisted that Christmas was not to be celebrated because they were trying to purify the worship of God from all the man-made rules and regulations that had grown up under the Roman church. Remember, the primary cause of division between Protestants and Catholics was the issue of authority. Rome insisted that authority was vested in the church and therefore could change doctrine and bind men’s consciences at will. The Reformers insisted that final authority rested in the Word of God.

Therefore in the 16th and 17th century, men literally fought and died over this issue of authority. The Roman church had created all sorts of feasts and festivals demanding that Christians celebrate them or suffer temporal and eternal sanctions. The Reformers insisted that only God, through His Word had proper authority to bind men’s consciences. Since God did not command Christmas, Easter and other feasts, fasts and festivals of the church calendar, these were infringements of the doctrine of the liberty of conscience. Therefore, the Reformers insisted that Christians should not celebrate Christmas because there was no specific Biblical warrant for doing so.

However, there was also another reason for the Puritan hatred of Christmas; the secular customs that had grown up around it. Christmas as a feast day, was notorious for being a time of drunkenness and debauchery, with the church often turning a blind eye. Even in the early 19th century, “Christmas Carolers” were composed of gangs of rowdy young men going house to house demanding free drinks; and they were perfectly willing to rough up those who refused to “celebrate” the custom. Thus, the Puritans and Presbyterians wanted to stamp out an ungodly practice that was associated with the worst sorts of behavior. It is just folly to look at our modern celebration of Christmas and assume that this was what the English Reformers were so concerned about. I doubt if there is an American evangelical alive today whose conscience is bound that if he does not celebrate Christmas, God will be displeased with him and he might lose his salvation. And the last time Christmas carolers came to my door, hardly any of them threatened to burn my house down if I refused to give them free liquor!

Thanks to the sentimentality of the Victorians, Christmas was trasnformed into a family-oriented holiday, focusing on children. They were a religious people (and revivalism had deeply stamped all evangelical Christianity with a strong emotive cast by the end of the 19^th century) so the Victorians made a clear connection between the birth of Christ and the emotional bonds towards their own families. Christmas thus was no longer an adult festival, but a family one.

Frankly, if I had lived in the 17th century I too would have preached against Christmas because at that time, it was a hindrance to sanctification; both religiously and practically. But that is not the case today; history has moved on and so should we. Granted, there is much today to criticize in the way that even Christians celebrate Christmas; for example, going into credit card debt to buy unneeded presents is irresponsible. Materialism is a common sin today and many Christians equate happiness with possessions. Christmas celebrations could become sinful if people spent money they did not have, or used the office party as an excuse for drunkenness or lechery, kissing other men’s wives under mistletoe; but then the problem, quite frankly is NOT Christmas, but of a lack of basic Christian character.

But What about the Regulative Principle?

But what about the worship issue; where do we get the right to celebrate Christmas since we have no Biblical command to celebrate the birth of Christ as a religious ordinance? Seriously though, who in this day, outside of the Roman church is celebrating Christmas as a divine command? Are there any Protestants in your experience who think that they might lose their salvation if they did not attend Christmas services? Granted, in many churches and communities, there are a lot of people who only come to church at Christmas and Easter. Often, they attend church services out of a sense of obligation to other family members, or perhaps, out of nostalgia. Obviously, these people have something lacking in their “faith.” Most of us would agree that these people need evangelizing; but the problem is not the celebration of Christmas but whether or not the gospel is being proclaimed. The “culture” of Christmas, regardless of its origins, has actually created a time, during the year, when we Christians are actually expected to talk about Jesus and demonstrate His love and grace to others!

In a related vein, how can it be sin, to celebrate an historical event? Can Christians lawfully celebrate Memorial Day, Thanksgiving, Reformation Day, or Mothers’ Day? Why or why not? A few years ago, after publishing a piece on Christmas, I received a letter from a “truly reformed” sort who was anti-Christmas and took exception to my writing that it was OK to recognize the Savior’s birth. He even included with his letter a copy of his church’s bulletin to show me what a “really” Reformed worship service looked like. In the announcement section was a blurb for their annual upcoming “Reformation Day” celebration with a special speaker in the morning, and a costume party for the kids after the evening service. Now just hold on a moment; where in Scripture did this truly Reformed brother receive a command to celebrate the Reformation? What divine mandate makes it acceptable to dress kids up in costumes and have special games? Did you see what he has done? Celebrating the birth of Christ is somehow bad and evil; but it is OK to celebrate the Reformation! “Mr. Pot, Mr. Kettle on line two…” If we can lawfully celebrate ANY event in history, such as the Reformation, or the American War of Independence, then we can also lawfully celebrate the birth of Christ.

No, December 25th is NOT a “religious” holiday in that God has commanded us to do certain things on that day and if we do not do those things, we incur His wrath. A “Christmas” worship service is bound just like any other worship service to be conducted in certain ways; i.e., we sing, pray, read the Word, preach the Word and administer the sacraments. Sure, Christians ought to be careful not to introduce elements into the worship service such as advent candles and plays that replace the preaching of the Word-all things that would be unlawful in ANY worship service. Christmas trees and Santa Claus are just as inappropriate in worship services as idol worship or temple prostitution (and yes, I am referring to YOU; roller-blading down the sanctuary dressed as Santa Claus-what were you thinking!).

We are NOT free to create new elements of worship just because we think they might be nice or aesthetically pleasing. Worship is our religious duty to give to God that which He has demanded of us; and if He hasn’t commanded it, we have no right to offer it; sorry, the theology of the Little Drummer boy is saccharine sweet but heretical. There is a recurring problem of sinful men wanting to create worship services that please us rather than God-but really, that’s a whole different issue. But come on people, why is it that I can preach messages about mothers on Mother’s Day, sermons on patriotism on Veteran’s Day, sermons emphasizing the Reformation on Reformation day, but I cannot preach on the incarnation in December! Give me a break!

Furthermore, there are many things we may lawfully do outside of worship that are forbidden IN worship. For example, do you celebrate birthdays? Can you give your wife or children birthday presents, sing a special song to them, have a special cake with candles that can be blown out after they make a wish? If so, what is your Biblical mandate for doing so? What, God has not bound your conscience regarding celebrating birthdays and leaves it up to your personal choice? I agree; God is neither pleased nor displeased with you celebrating someone’s birthday other than whether the general provisions of His law are obeyed. However, if we can lawfully celebrate our birthdays, why can we not celebrate the birthday of the Lord Jesus just as long as we do not bind men’s consciences or break God’s law in worship?

But what about all the parties and gifts and special meals; surely all this consumption is unholy and displeasing to God. However, is it? God gave the ancient Israelites many different feasts and festivals; in fact they had to even set aside a third of a tithe so that every third year they could hold a big party! God certainly does NOT object to feasts and festivals, to enjoying the good things he provides, to remembering the weak and downtrodden, to giving gifts in memorial to His gracious gift to us.

And that is really the unspoken problem that a lot of Christians have with Christmas despite their theological or historical rationalizations. They don’t like feasts and festivals; somehow being happy and joyous seems “unspiritual” to them. They may well have unconsciously adopted a Greek mindset that sees the body as inherently inferior, therefore making physical pleasures innately sinful. They conclude that there must be something wrong with people laughing and feasting, giving and receiving presents and having a good time! I am dead serious here; over the years when I talk to many, many Christians, it appears that the real reason why they hate Christmas is because they think that it is wrong to have fun. There really are a lot more people like Scrooge, and the Grinch than we think.

The twenty-fifth of December as just another day, and has no religious significance. There is nothing “holy” about it, and despite the efforts of the Church Fathers to calculate the right date, probably was not the day Jesus was actually born. However If the angels of heaven could publicly proclaim His birth, what possible problem can there be for us to likewise commemorate that wondrous event? How can it be wrong to sing those wonderful, postmillennial hymns which celebrate the birth of Christ during the month of December? And since the incarnation is so central to human history, then where is the problem with preaching a special series of sermons exploring the implications of the advent of the Lord Jesus?

And though most of what we think of as “traditional” Christmas customs are less than 150 years old, how is anyone violating God’s law by putting up a Christmas tree or giving kids some special presents on December 25th?” Where does Scripture say that God is offended if wives make some special foods for dinner that day? Where does He forbid us to invite friends, neighbors or members of the church over to laugh and joke and play silly games and rejoice in all the blessings that He gave this past year?

So maybe we all need to just lighten up a bit, rejoice in our liberty of conscience in Christ and not judge others. If you choose not to celebrate Christmas, then Lord bless you-take advantage of having the day off and read a good book or something. But grant your brother the same liberty of conscience-and literally, for God’s sake, do not create a law where He Himself has not done so. But as for me and my house, we intend to feast and celebrate and rejoice that the Lord has come into the world with a cheerful heart and a good conscience.

Christmas Symbols

Introduction and Review

In a previous essay (“The Battle to Save Christmas”), we examined the fact that Christmas, while a Christian holiday, is not a Biblical one; essentially being a creation of the 19th century overly sentimental Victorians. We also saw that often, people want something from Christmas that it cannot provide; almost from its inception, Christians have looked nostalgically at Christmas feeling that “something” special, precious, yes, even “magical” was being lost. Within a decade of creating this “holiday” Victorian Christians were already complaining that the real “meaning” was being replaced by consumerism; a theme repeatedly witnessed right down to the modern day. However, recently the fear of “losing” Christmas took an ominous turn when the forces of secularization openly attempted to remove all Christian elements of the Christmas celebration. The last essay ended with attempting to place the celebration of Christmas within the context of a consistent Biblical worldview. Now, let us build on that basis and explore some of the implications.

The Nature of Symbols

The presuppositions with which we begin, will invariably determine the conclusions we eventually reach. Hence many sincere Christians, who really do want to please God, end up with ungodly beliefs and practices because unconsciously, they start from the wrong basis. First among these is the ongoing tendency (inherited from our father Adam’s sin) to think about God, the world and our relationship to both from the wrong perspective; i.e., that life revolves around us. However Christians must begin with the right presuppositions and foremost among those is that we live in a “theocentric” universe created by the Living and True God Who made all things to reveal His nature and glory (Psa 19:1ff, Acts Col.1:13-19). The Bible begins with the solemn pronouncement that God created the heavens and the earth. The “glory” of God is the visible manifestation of His invisible nature seen as light (1 Jn 1:5). It is interesting to note that we do not see “things” -we see light reflected off things. In the same way God’s glory is “reflected” in creation. Thus everything beautiful, awesome, marvelous and wonderful that we experience in life is in some way a reflection of His glory.

Now, God’s glory is both a beautiful “thing” and a consuming fire- sinful men cannot “see” God with their naked eyes, lest it destroy them. However, the “beatific” vision is a theological term referring to the ultimate bliss of redeemed Man being able to bask in the full, unadulterated glory of God in eternity.

While human sin twists, distorts and mars the image of God, both in our own nature as well as the natural world, the image is still there. We can recognize and approve of honor, courage, dedication and self-sacrifice because all these moral traits are a reflection of the unchanging nature of God. At the same time, we can look at the wonders of creation, stars, mountains, oceans and autumn trees rich with foliage and know that these are all beautiful and yes, even “glorious.” Since we were designed for God, to love Him and enjoy Him forever, innately within every human soul is a hunger for that beauty and glory of God which creation was intended to reflect.

Sinful men seek to suppress the truth so clearly revealed by God in creation (Rms 1:28-20) but they cannot deny its power and draw. Instead of submitting to the one, true God, they attempt to feed their thirst for wonder, beauty and God’s glory through various wicked and perverse means; i.e., the occult, idolatry, false religion, art, fiction, etc., But even sinful men in SOME way are seeking SOMETHING of God no matter how wicked and perverse because “in Him we live and move and have our being…” As Christians we can approve of the work of even unrepentant sinners who “create” beauty in painting, architecture, sculpture, poetry and fiction; for the glory of God is an objective “thing” that exists whether or not men acknowledge the God it reflects. Granted, we argue that when ungodly men “create” beautiful things it is only by being inconsistent with their own presuppositions; but our point here is that all men, can appreciate beauty because every moment of every day they LIVE in that glory!

The Symbol and the Word

Though the image of God is clearly seen in His creation (Romans 1:18-20), God speaks definitively and clearly through His Word. Psalm 19 begins with the glory of God seen in the Heavens but ends with the glory of God in the perfection of His Law. Men knew of God before the Law, but God was pleased to speak even more clearly through His written revelation. David’s Psalm is a wonderful poem about the glory of God revealed in the stars, sun and moon; yet it is only in the Law of God that we find it completion.

One of the supreme aspects of His nature that God displays in His written revelation that could not be fully appreciated just through creation is His trinity; that He is One God in three distinct persons. The Apostle Paul can rightly state that all things were created BY Christ, FOR Christ to the glory of God (Col 1:16). It was God’s desire to unfold this revelation of His Son over time, and He did so through stories, poems, prophecies and religious rituals from Genesis through Malachi. Some may wonder “why” God just did not come right out and say it; however, His ways are not our ways and His thoughts are not our thoughts (Isa 55:8-9). Hence it is futile to speculate about why God chose to reveal His Son the way He did; the fact is, He is God and we are not- and whatever He does must be the proper right and good thing judged only by His standards.

In Genesis 1:26 God reveals Himself as both Unity and Plurality when He said, “Let Us make Man in Our image…” Then, when Man rebelled, God revealed that His Son would become flesh as the Seed of the Woman (Gen 3: 15). As I argue in my “Hebrew Bible” college course, the entire revelation of the “Old” Testament at least in one sense, is the ongoing battle as the Seed of the Serpent attempts to subvert, destroy or compromise the Seed of the Woman. Hence, Christ can be seen in every “chapter” of the “Old” Testament; but He is pictured there in shadows, types, and images -symbols, if you will. The writers of the “New” Testament often pick up these “symbols” or “pictures” of Jesus in the “Old” Testament and apply them to Him in ways that often, we find difficult to understand. For example, the New Testament clearly identifies Jesus as the fulfillment of the prophecy of a “virgin-birth” but the actual “Old” Testament fulfillment was a married woman! This was NOT a case of the “New” Testament writers making a mistake or twisting the text but rather that the entire “Old” Testament is a picture, shadow or type revealing Jesus!

While the “Old” Testament ends with a defeated, depleted people of God looking forward to the promised Seed of the Woman, the “New” Testament opens with God’s promise in Genesis 3:15 being fulfilled. Hence what was once an “image” has now become “reality;” Jesus has become flesh and dwelt among us. Yet even here we often think of Jesus in anthropocentric terms; we focus on what He did to save us, rather than on what He did to reveal Himself and the glory of God. Yes, we needed Him to come and do what He did; but His coming is primarily about revealing the love, mercy and justice of the one true God -not that we have been saved.

Thus, God chose to reveal His Son Jesus as one of His primary purposes in creation. Through Jesus He created the heavens and the earth. Through Jesus, He redeems His creation, cursed because of our sin. Hence, all of human history is about Him; and the highest and holiest calling of all men, in all ages is to know that which Almighty God has chosen to reveal; “and this is eternal life, that men might know Thee, the only true God and Jesus Christ whom Thou has sent…” (Jn 17:3).

The Analogical Knowledge of God

Yet, our knowledge about God must by necessity be “analogical;” i.e., (a simple picture explaining a more complex reality). His essence, His true nature is impossible for even perfected men to fully comprehend or appreciate because we must think within the categories of creation and creation is only a reflection, an image of God. Now there are several ways of looking at this (and we do not want to wander too far afield examining issues of epistemology). However consider this; is God’s revelation of Himself as a Father and Jesus as His Son an analogy of human father and son relationships? In other words, did God choose to reveal this aspect of His own inner nature in the closest possible analogy that humans could understand? Or, is it the other way around? Is there something about the nature of God that is imprinted into creation and manifests itself most powerfully through the “father-son” experience? I would argue the latter; that since all creation was made by Him and for Him to reveal Him, then everything in some way is an aspect of His glory and nature.

Thus, the godly man will see “Jesus” in every thing he does and every event that happens; not in some “mystical” sense as in a transcendent “spiritual” experience- and not as a voice whispering things into his ear- but in that all there is was made by Jesus, for Jesus to the glory of God the Father. Furthermore, as the Lord of Heaven and Earth, sitting at the right hand of God, King Jesus is right now ruling all creation according to His will, subduing His enemies, protecting His people and spreading His Kingdom. It does not matter one whit whether or not we understand why He is doing whatever He is doing, or even whether we can make sense out of His reign; after all, to understand why God does whatever He does, you would have to be God-and it was that little presumption that created this mess in the first place!

Every moment of every day, we live “in” Jesus who is working His will in the world. Now, in the process of self-revelation, as mentioned previously, God gave us “symbols” in the form of the temple, circumcision, Passover and the like. In the “New” Testament, Jesus became flesh and dwelt among us. After ascending into heaven, He left us with two “symbols” (Baptism and the Lord’s Supper) which are the ongoing, visible reminders of His nature and acts which are also, in some sense, “seals” of His grace, love and fulfillment of His covenant promises to His people.

Yet the richness of God’s revelation of Jesus is so powerful that it permeates every aspect of our lives and thus, over time men cannot help but find other pictures of Him. Symbols are not “secret codes” with a one-for-one correspondence between the symbol and the entity being pictured. For example, in the rural Northwest one can quite often see bald eagles flying or perched in trees. They are huge birds and have a solemn dignity about them that makes one think of honor, courage and stern attention to duty. Yet, the American bald eagle is a carrion eater that will never attack anything anywhere near its own size. Supposedly when the bald eagle was being considered as our national emblem, Ben Franklin objected and suggested the turkey as an alternative. In one sense, Old Ben was right; in reality the turkey is a nobler bird than an eagle; however, it does not stimulate within us the same kind of response that the bald eagle does!

The symbols do not work on a straight-forward intellectual level, but at a “deeper” more “intuitive” level. Hence the world in which we live is a vast sea of unimaginable depths all designed by a sovereign, wondrous God to display His marvelous nature and being. For what it is worth, I think the most pathetic kind of person is the one who is utterly pragmatic, whose life is so infused with the “natural” that he can no longer “see” the mystery and yes, even “magic” that surrounds even the most prosaic of life-events. We live in a picture and we cannot help but create pictures to make sense out of that which God has revealed about Himself.

Christmas “Symbols”

Sometimes these “pictures” are idolatrous and forbidden because Man attempts to worship God according to his own desires. Never underestimate the subtly of human sin; from the beginning we have been slyly finding ways to do our will, rather than God’s. However, there are special times of thanksgiving, praise and worship that may be lawful and approved by God, even though not instituted by Him; i.e., the use of wine at the Passover. If you know the original story of Passover, there is no mention of wine. Yet by the time of the Lord Jesus, wine had become a feature of the Passover Meal. Jesus did not rebuke the Israelites for “adding” to His original requirements, but instead took the cup of wine and transformed it into an essential part of the Lord’s Supper.

In the same way, while there is no Biblical warrant for any of our Christmas celebrations, yet, even so in some sense, Christians are practically compelled to celebrate that God sent His Son into history to live for us and die for us. However, as in all things, sinful men can pervert that which is meant to be good; e.g., in the old Roman church, it literally did become a “compulsion” as the church attempted to bind men’s consciences. Hence the English and Scottish Reformers banned Christmas just so that they could liberate the Christian’s conscience from unwarranted ecclesiastical legalism. Yet, within a hundred and fifty years, Christians went right back to celebrating “Christmas;” was this a defection from the Reformed faith or simply the inevitable result of Christians finding Christ all around them?

Many Christians attempt to rehabilitate “Christmas” by “finding” symbols in Christmas trees and decorations, feasting, presents, etc. I have done so myself in the past; e.g., the evergreen tree is a “picture” of eternal life, the “spikes” a reminder of the crown of thorns, the lights and decorations a “symbol” of the glory of God. Yet, let me suggest that this is too superficial, too much like that “code” we dismissed earlier. Instead, perhaps the truth is that since we live and move and breathe in Him in every moment in every day, everything is an expression of Him. Thus, we do not have to “find” Jesus in the tree (which always struck me as a bit too close to idolatry anyway) but we can still enjoy what has become an annual custom. Decorated Christmas trees can be simply fun and beautiful (though some may be tacky and garish). Yet is not beauty, and the desire for it, and the quest to “create it” in and of itself, a reflection of His beauty?

Granted, Christmas can just as easily hide Christ by focusing on our desires, our indulgence or even our feelings about God! This seems to be the real danger; we “sanitize” the annual celebration with a veneer of “spirituality” so that then we can focus on what we want. Some people want expensive presents; some people want an excuse to indulge in gluttony, drunkenness or even debauchery (the mistletoe custom has always struck me as godless to the extreme). Some people want an experience that takes them back to a more innocent time.

Or, perhaps we can take a step back during this time of the year and reflect on God’s great love, of His gracious gift to us in Christ, of the sacrifice that He made on our behalf and of our need to be humble before God because He is Lord. Christmas presents can be indulgence and examples of crass materialism, or a healthy, hearty rejoicing in the gifts that God gives us; not only His Son, but eternal life, blessedness, and joy (remember God required Israel to TITHE every year for a great festival of rejoicing before the Lord).

Let me suggest that the real issue is one of the heart; we can use Christmas as an excuse to “party” and then try to “spiritualize” it by giving Jesus a passing nod; or we can use this as a special time of the year to reflect on Who He is and Why He came. We can look at our own hearts; do we think we are approved by God for who and what we are, or for Who Christ is and what He did for us?

Thus, Christmas can be a time of joyful proclamation of the coming of the King of Glory- that Jesus Christ is the King of King and Lord of Lords. However, if we celebrate in “word” but not in truth, we simply call down His judgment on our own heads- for after the packages have all been unwrapped, the decorations put away, do we also put Jesus away as well? Celebrating His Lordship means nothing unless we live that Lordship every day of our lives.

We cannot escape Christ; He is all around us, His Spirit gives us life and every moment of every day we exist because of His grace and mercy. Every nanosecond all of creation is screaming out that Jesus is Lord; the question is, are you listening?

Possibly Related Posts:

The Christian and Were-Wolves

Rev Brian Abshire — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 00:52:06 +0000

The Theology of Lycanthropy:

“Even a man who is pure of heart,
And says his prayers at night;
Can become a wolf,
When the wolf-bane blooms,
And the full moon shines out its light”
(The Wolf-Man-Universal Studios)

Far too many moderns lack a sense of history; and not knowing where they came from, inevitably are confused about where they are going,- both individually, and culturally. For example, it was little more than two decades ago that the wolf in American culture underwent a massive PR campaign, giving him a new image. You can revel in his adventures in films and documentaries, use his image to advertise various products and even purchase his face for t-shirts. And all the time you can bewail this noble beast’s persecution at the hand of evil men. Pardon me, if I have another opinion.

Canus Lupus is a pack animal that in earlier days, especially in Europe, was a real life monster, reliably reputed to have decimated whole villages (and for the record, I am using the word “decimate” correctly here as “killing one in ten” and not in its more popular and erroneous usage meaning “totally devastate”). As late as the last few decades of the twentieth century, packs of wolves were documented attacking armed guards at border crossings in Eastern Europe, being driven off only by hand-grenades and automatic weapons fire.

In the Middle Ages, when much of Europe was still forested, large roaming packs of wolves seemed to be more than just an unstoppable force of nature, devastating whole herds of domestic animals and eating more than their fair share of the local peasantry. There is a reason why those of us from European stock have vivid cultural memories of wolves as evil, cunning predators battling for first place on the food chain. Little Red Riding Hood may be a fairy tale to us; but to our ancestors, grannies and little girls being eaten by wolves was an all too common occurrence.

Granted, American wolves, though genetically identical to their European cousins, seemed to have avoided the “old country” customs, but still suffer from their bad reputation. Supposedly, there are NO verified reports of attacks on people from wolves; but one never knows how to evaluate these kinds of statistics since Native Americans were not known for keeping detailed diaries of which animal posed the greatest threat to their safety. And it is always good to remember that the ancestors of Native Americans, armed with primitive bows and spears, pretty much introduced the word “extinction” to dire wolves, wooly mammoths, cave bears, saber-toothed “tigers” and other much larger and more fearsome predators (though of course our evolutionary friends might dispute this). It could be that wolves in America were just a little bit smarter than their European kin and learned to avoid man, while he was busy exterminating the more dangerous types of animals

By the time Europeans arrived in North American in force, they brought with them gunpowder technology- and everyone can agree that wolves are smart enough to realize when they are out-gunned. Unlike Europeans, Americans have always been a well-armed people and wolves would have been seen as a threat to be dealt with immediately. It is possible that Americans never suffered the depredations the Europeans did because we could shoot further and faster; so the lessons that wolves began to learn from the Indians, was given its final, graduate degree by European settlers. American wolves might have discovered fairly quickly that we took a dim view of them eating our grandmothers, or little girls, no matter how bad the eye-sight or how gullible the females of our species might have been.

Of course that didn’t keep wolves from preying on our life-stock as often as they could. But traps, poison and a bounty on their pelts kept their numbers down so that they never had the opportunity to develop a taste for human flesh. However, now that we have foundations, federal grants, and tree-huggers reintroducing them into the wild, we just might find that the latest generation has forgotten the lessons of their great-great-grand-parents. Coyotes and cougars are already well known for eating family pets and even attacking little children and the occasional country jogger. Who knows, maybe the combination of the modern wolf and unarmed citizens might teach a whole new kind of lesson?

Regardless of the status of North American wolves in modern culture, in Europe he WAS the most feared predator for well over a thousand years. Thanks to the climate and Roman circuses, all the other large predators had been become virtually extinct by the fourth century, leaving an ecological niche for wolves to fill as chief predator. Because they are intelligent creatures; just below apes but apparently above dolphins, and because they hunted in packs; they proved to be deadly opponents before the age of gun powder (and to be honest, European urbanization helped since it destroyed their habitat).

Somewhere during the time period after the fall of the Empire and the rise of the modern state, the were-wolf legend became a staple of European mythology. There have always been stories of humans being raised by wolves; the best known probably is the myth of Romulus and Remus, the founders of Rome, who were raised by a she-wolf. Of course most of us know the legend of Mowgli from India that eventually became the basis for Kipling’s “Jungle Book” stories. In this period, the close relationship with wolves did not make them the fearsome creatures that they would later assume in Western mythology.

However, lycanthropy, the idea that certain men can turn into animals that prey on humans, is another one of those universal myths (like ghosts, vampires, etc.). The only difference is the form of animal that the humans transform into; it appears to depend upon whatever is the dominant predator in the area. In South America, it was the were-jaguar; in Africa it was the were-lion, India had its were-tigers and Europe had its were-wolves. (By the way, the term “were,” is a corruption of the Latin word “vir” or “man.” For example, we use the same root for our English word “virile” which means “manly.” In classic Latin pronunciation, the “v” sound is a “w” thus “vir” becomes “wir” or “were.” Thus a “were-wolf” is literally a “man-wolf” which doesn’t sound half as neat as “Wolf-man”).

Those “legends” are still widely believed and taught by shamans in Africa, South America and India who insist that some people have the ability to transform themselves into animals. In fact, there are reliable accounts from some big game hunters that maybe not all the man-eaters they killed over the years were strictly “natural” creatures. Some have even suggested that the “Lions of Tsavo” MIGHT have been were-lions. You might have seen one of the recent film versions called, “Ghost in the Darkness” wherein two lions did their best to help China, India and Africa deal with their over-population problems by dining on rail-road workers. The reason is that these “lions” did not act like normal lions, even man-eaters.

While I am not about to start worrying about full-moons or stocking up on silver bullets any time soon, the rationale BEHIND the “were-wolf” legends is worthy of study and consideration. All of the local legends share the common theme of the descent of man into the bestial; and of the horrible consequences of human-like intelligence being mated with animal ferocity.

I would argue that the theological basis for lycanthropy can be found in the story in Daniel of Nebuchadnezzar who in his pride exalted himself as a god (Dan 4:28ff). The Lord God then struck him down, making him a senseless brute for seven years. The modern psychologist of course will see here some sort of mental disease; a psychotic break that resulted in a man losing his sanity. And though Nebuchadnezzar is never said to actually have BECOME an animal-just lost his reason, therefore denying the glory that he had aspired to, it does provide an understanding of the central fears that the myth itself addresses.

The were-wolf as a figure of horror was well-known throughout Europe. Supposedly, a man consorted with the Devil and as a consequence, he would be given a belt that would transform him into the most fearsome predator then known. Transformation into a wolf was not necessarily associated with full moons, but was a conscious choice that a person could make at ANY time of the month; and any time of the day. There are actual wood-cuts and illustrations from medieval books supposedly showing men turning themselves into wolves.

And yes, again, Hollywood gets it wrong here almost universally. The “wolf-man” is NOT part man and part wolf, as the classic make up would suggest; but that the man literally BECAME a wolf. However, American sensitivities being what they are, it’s kind of hard to be frightened by what looks like on screen, just a big German shepherd. We love dogs too much, and have too closely associated them with pets to really FEAR them as monsters. Unlike our European ancestors who actually had to fight off large packs of wolves ravaging whole towns and cities, we have never seen the wolf that way; and so Hollywood had to change the make-up and the myth in order to convey the terror.

The real horror of the were-wolf is that something once human has now become a ravenous beast. It is the loss of humanity and the adoption of bestial characteristics that makes the were-wolf such a figure of horror. In American films, ever since the first “wolf-man” movie with Lon Chaney Junior, the were-wolf was initially portrayed as both the monster, AND the victim. Chaney’s character is bitten by a were-wolf and then to HIS horror, each full moon, turns into a beastly creature, striking out first at innocent strangers but eventually becoming a danger to his own family and friends. The movie has a powerful climatic scene as his own father beats him to death with a silver-headed cane (from my research, silver being the only effective weapon against were-wolves is another Hollywood invention. Earlier tales have the were-wolves being killed by quite ordinary means; guns, knives, and even, in one instance, by a heavy ring of keys thrown into its face).

There is remarkable Biblical imagery in the original 1930’s film with the father having to kill his own son, to save others. Biblical law required parents to bear witness against their own children who were covenant breakers; as important as the family is, ultimate loyalty belongs only to God. Thus, the father here, by killing his own son, protects the broader community from the evil that is inside him. Furthermore, the evil is something the son cannot control, it is something outside of him that over-powers his will and makes him into a monster. By killing the son, the father is in effect, SAVING the son from the monster inside.

Now, let us compare the medieval version of lycanthropy with its modern incarnation. Originally, a man was thought to deliberately make a covenant with the Devil in order to gain the power to become a ravenous monster. To become a lycanthrope was thus a demonstration of primordial power-a descent into the chaos-a self-conscious attempt to lose one’s humanity for the joys associated with utter savagery and the lack of a moral conscious.

The modern incarnation however saw lycanthropy as a disease; the beast taking over the man from the inside, causing him to lose his rationality and his humanity. He is as much victim, as predator, and sees his condition as a curse to be endured or ended as quickly as possible. What accounts for the different interpretations of lycanthropy?

I would argue that at least one possible answer is the theological revolution that has occurred from the Middle Ages to the present. By definition, in the older view, one’s humanity was a gift from God because we are made in the image of God. To lose that humanity, as happened to Nebuchadnezzar, was a curse of God. Thus in an age when demons, witches, vampires and were-wolves were believed prevalent, evil was assumed to be a self-conscious choice; bad things happened because people did bad things. Granted, a simplistic approach, but it provided an answer for the depravity and wickedness that so often haunted medieval society. Remember, this culture was much harsher and more brutal than anything we can realistically imagine today. Executions were public, torture routine and battles often left no survivors as local residents slit the throats of the wounded to pillage their belongings. It was a brutal world, and the assumption was that brutality was a result of an inner moral decision.

Fast forward now to the 20^th century where Sigmund Freud has had decades to make his theories popular. Evil, as a concept is not a result of individual decisions, but rather a product of the environment. The germ theory of disease had finally been understood and therefore evil was something apart from man that infected him. The were-wolf was evil, because he had been infected with something that made him evil. The source of his evil was therefore outside of himself. He was in fact a “good” man until this evil, were-wolf virus entered this body and turned him into a monster!

Furthermore, the were-wolf legend became a reverse apologetic for evolutionary theory; man supposedly had evolved from beasts and achieved consciousness, morality and humanity. The were-wolf as victim saw an unintended descent BACK into the bestial losing man the very things that evolution had given him.

The difference between the medieval and modern myth of lycanthropy lies in the difference between what we think causes human depravity. The modern version wants to make evil, something outside of the human condition. And it is merely a new version of the age old goal of Man since the Garden of Eden; wicked men seek to flee from the responsibility of his own sin. Adam blamed Eve, Eve blamed the serpent, and all sinful men have attempted throughout history to either deny their sin or blame it on someone, or something else. Modern psychology and psychiatry look for environmental or medical problems to explain the causes of human evil. The modern were-wolf mythology is just the same old story, gussied up by Hollywood, of the ageless attempt of man to blame his bestial nature on something outside of himself rather than acknowledge the true depravity of his own wicked heart.

In the last twenty years or so, the were-wolf has reappeared in modern fiction, especially in several films. And Hollywood, true to form, is reinterpreting the were-wolf mythology again its own image. In “the Howling,” the were-wolf was no longer the innocent victim but an epistemologically self-conscious predator seeing humans as his legitimate prey. The story begins with a journalist receiving an invitation for an exclusive interview with a serial killer/rapist hotly pursued by the police. She meets him in a pornographic book-store, inside one of those little cubicles that show dirty movies. To the accompaniment of a violent rape scene being played out on the screen behind them, the journalist comes face to face with the killer, who transforms into a wolf-like creature. Just as he is about to attack her, he is shot dead by the police. And that is just the beginning of the movie; it gets worse.

However, the film does capture something of the real horror of the modern were-wolf legend in that the monster has now returned to his medieval origins. He is wicked and evil, not because of some gypsy curse, or having survived an attack by another monster, but he is evil because he ENJOYS being the predator. Rape is just an added delicacy to an over-powering hunger to kill. There is even a scene with John Carradine, (he of the awesome voice), who gives a reasonable apologetic for WHY it is perfectly normal and NATURAL for were-wolves to prey on humans.

Perhaps the explanation for the return of the older view is that after two hot wars that killed tens of millions of people, a cold war that threatened to eliminate the entire race and Vietnam that destroyed America’s sense of its own goodness, we in the West are finally dealing with the reality of evil in our midst. Our social planners have promised for over a hundred years that if we can only fund the right program, with the right people, we can end war, famine, starvation, and brutality. But our popular mythology often exposes our secret fears that we will not admit to in our public debates; the evil is within us-and there is nothing we can do about it. Our prisons are full of creatures just as vile, just as monstrous as anything Hollywood has ever created for “entertainment” and we rightly fear these creatures that prey on other humans without a twig of conscience. The real issue of lycanthropy is not men who transform themselves into animals-but rather men who look like men, but have lost the essence of their humanity; the image of God inside.

The ONLY solution for human evil is a radical transformation of the heart. We live in a moral universe, governed by a personal God in whose image we are made. The essence of our life, our humanity is something given to us at creation when God breathed a living soul into the creature he had made from the dust of the earth. When men abandon faith and trust in this sovereign, personal God, they lose contact with the only true source of genuine humanity. And what is left then, is our depraved nature-unrestrained by any of the God-given attributes that makes us human. The gospel of Jesus Christ is the only solution for man’s inner, innate evil.

Thus the theology of the were-wolf is man without God; self-consciously in rebellion to his ethical standards and living life on his own terms according to his own moral standards. And for a hundred and fifty years our philosophers, educators and social commentators have told us that to be free from God, His Law and His morality is to become truly human. What we find instead is that to be “free” from God is to become a monster; the were-wolf is not a myth, but the beast that lives within all of us.

Possibly Related Posts:

The Christian and Vampires

Rev Brian Abshire — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 00:28:09 +0000

The Ethics of Vampirism

Myths and legends are not just quaint folk-tales told for amusement-even in the days before television and movies, myths always served a higher function than mere “entertainment.” Invariably, behind those stories there exists an entire worldview that deals with the fears, anxieties, and darkest desires of a culture. A single myth can explain more about a culture, than a legion of sociologists armed with surveys and clip-boards could accomplish in a life-time. Myths are powerful because they tap into the real, underlying values of a culture

The myth of the vampire is worldwide; every culture seems to have developed some sort of legend of a creature who lives off the blood of the innocent. This connection may be explained by Scripture itself telling us that the “life is in the blood.” While we recognize both the sacramental aspects of this as well as the medical, blood and life are closely associated in all human communities. Most people today are most familiar with the Eastern European version of the blood-sucking myth, especially as dramatized by Bram Stoker’s novel, “Dracula.”

When analyzing any mythology, the old Materialist’s anti-supernatural prejudice must be recognized and dealt with. Christians, by revelation, KNOW that the supernatural exists; but apart from what Scripture tells us, we must depend upon rational investigation to determine if legends or myths have any substance in reality. Since the Bible does not talk about vampires, we have no divine authentication for their actual existence. While belief in literal vampires was common throughout Europe during the Middle Ages, (most well-educated, professionals right up to the Enlightenment assumed the vampire’s existence to have been proven), the 19^th century saw a powerful reaction against anything supernatural. Vampires, being supernatural could not exist because the Materialists refused to believe in anything that was “above” nature. By the time that Stoker wrote his novel, it was just a horror story- a compilation of strange and eerie legends that could send a shiver up the spine. Granted, his novel probably touched something very basic and primordial in English and American culture; men were uncomfortable with the advancing power of Humanism and Materialism and therefore found his novel intriguing, just because it provided a culturally acceptable way of dealing with the supernatural.

And apart from certain maladjusted personalities suffering from various psychopathologies, no one in modern society really BELIEVES in vampires -though there MAY be several perfectly normal explanation for wide-spread reports of vampirism in the Middle Ages. For example, a person infected with rabies shares many similarities with the classic vampire; aversion to light, pasty complexion, insane, aggressive behavior leading to biting, etc. And like the vampires of legend, a person bitten by someone or something afflicted with rabies will contract the disease (though actually, to become a vampire according to classic mythology requires a transfer of blood FROM the vampire to the victim-again, Hollywood usually gets this wrong). However, people afflicted with “vampirism” might bite a victim, who would then die. It was assumed that since vampirism was a curse, if a person came back from the dead, as a vampire, he MUST have done something intentional to bring it upon himself, such as make a pact with the devil or willingly drunk from a vampire; either way, there was a connection between an exchange of fluids and vampirism, which is what happens when the rabies infected saliva is introduced into an open wound.

So, modern science has safely regulated the existence of the vampire to actual phenomenon misinterpreted by “primitive” pre-scientific cultures. However rural villagers in Romania have been reliably reported TO THIS DAY to routinely drive a stake through the heart of certain corpses before final burial. (As a side note, the purpose for driving a stake through the heart of a vampire is NOT to kill it, but rather to pin it to the ground so that it cannot leave its grave; again, Hollywood got it wrong).

Originally, the vampire legend, though taking slightly different forms in different cultures, universally described the creature as a genuine undead monster, creeping out of its grave to prey on the innocent. It was only with the stage and film version of Stoker’s “Dracula” especially as personified in the characterization given by the Hungarian actor, Bela Lugosi that the vampire became a “romantic” figure with suave manners and an opera cape.

In fact, due to the strictures on sexuality in the films of the time, it became quite clear to EVERY social commentator that the appeal of vampirism was that it was a euphemism for erotic seduction. All those scenes of “Dracula” staring into beautiful young women’s eyes, or entering their bedrooms at night, were deliberately staged to suggest something that the more Christianized culture at the time forbid to put on the screen. Dracula however became passé in the 1940’s; the Depression and WW II created a conservative mindset that suppressed sexuality in ALL forms and vampirism was no longer frightening without his seductive powers. “Dracula” was eventually reduced to sharing the screen with Abbot and Costello; no longer a character of fear or even seduction but simply a caricature to be ridiculed.

The Hammer Film Company in Great Britain revived the vampire genre starting in the 1950’s-60’s and with the loosening moral ties, exploited the sexual aspects of vampirism. In the early films, they might have restricted themselves to the inevitable busty female with a plunging neckline, but by the seventies, they created an entire series of films that qualify as soft-porn. Only having seen the American television versions of the Hammer films, I was shocked when I saw them broadcast, uncut on BBC and ITV while living in England. I grew up watching Peter Cushing as Van Helsing chase Christopher Lee as Dracula with crosses, cornering him and then inventively dispatching him, only to see Dracula arise in ever more creative ways in the next film. To realize that Hammer had destroyed the “innocence” of this classic battle between good and evil by deliberately injecting nudity and perversion, was just very, very, sad.

However, this sexual aspect has always been a basic underpinning of the popularization of vampirism in modern literature and film. In fact, contemporary movies actually make the sexuality the central theme. Originally, a vampire was an animated corpse, with all the attraction that implies, able to maintain a sense of “life” by feeding off the blood of the innocent. The silent film, “Nosferatu” (and its recent remake-which is a brilliant satire on Hollywood) is a far more accurate portrayal of the actual myth of the vampire; a horrible, monstrous, undead THING that preys on the living. Vampirism is clearly a curse for both the vampire and the victim.

However, modern vampirism in movies and books seems to be a blessing; one receives eternal youth, beauty, strength and power. One can have sexual relations at will with all the partners one wants. One can control others through various means as well it seems a black belt in various martial arts. Film-makers still usually make the vampire an evil character, but they seem muddled about WHY the character is evil-and often blur the line so badly that it is hard to tell the difference between the hero and villain. In fact, in popular literature (say Anne Rice’s works), the vampire is often down-right sympathetic. “Blade,” three films based on a Marvel comic book series began with the classic conception of the vampire as the ultimate evil to be destroyed, but eventually succumbed to the temptation of making them morally ambiguous. It is no accident that if one does a Google search on the Internet for “Vampire” there are literally tens of thousands of web-sites devoted to vampiric lore, clubs, fiction, art, films, etc. The average person today no longer sees the vampire as a monster to be feared, but rather the overt expression of their own dark natures; sexual and otherwise.

The appeal of the modern vampire is of power on man’s terms; the power to be strong, to kill at will, but preeminently the power to seduce. And let there be no mistake, seduction is power. The original mythology of vampires was more akin to a brutal rape; the violent assault on the innocent (which is not to say that the earlier mythology was sexual in any way). The modern version normally uses hypnosis and the promise of immortality as the main means of obtaining “blood” when it wants to portray the vampire as anything less than pure evil; but at the core, both approaches are ultimately about exercising power over others.

The modern vampire is thus popular just because it offers the greatest of all possible temptations; to be as god, unrestrained by anyone or anything other than one’s own will. The vampire is beautiful and young, sexual and strong, without conscience or inhibition and in female form, is ALWAYS perverted in orientation. Thus the modern vampire appeals to all the basest urgings and desires of the human soul, because at heart, it implicitly grants the right to be above morality.

The ethic of the modern vampire is simply the philosophy of the Marquis de Sade without all the pretentious verbiage. De Sade was not just about inflicting pain for sexual pleasure, but about imposing his will on others because he could; whatever “is” - is right. De Sade sought philosophical justification for his perversions, and even revolutionary France declared him insane and committed him to asylums. But the attack on Christian theism and morality that the revolution had unloosed could not be stemmed simply because they imprisoned its most philosophically consistent adherent. Later on Nietzsche gave a more philosophical and rational justification for the same approach to human ethics; his myth of the super-man, directly led to fascism and the death camps in Germany. Power, unrestrained by anything except man’s own will, inevitably leads to destruction. As Lord Acton said, “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Thus, the modern myth of the vampire is De Sade and Nietzsche come to life in the form of a monster that we secretly recognize as living inside all of us. For two thousand years, Biblical Christianity kept that monster safely chained up; the Enlightenment, Humanism, Materialism and the death of modern philosophy have released him again to prey on the innocent. It is no accident that brutal rapes, and sadistic serial killers (almost all sexually motivated), have become pandemic in modern culture. No, we cannot blame the myth of the vampire for their cause, but we can see the common ground between them. What Hollywood and popular fiction glamorize, twisted men act out in their daily life.

As mentioned previously, at the root of all human problems is a basic orientation to want to be as god, determining good and evil for one’s self exercising power over others according to one’s own will. This power might be personal, social, economic or political; but the essence of the man in rebellion to God is an unlawful desire to replace God’s sovereignty with man’s will.

In a Christianized society, this sinful orientation is inhibited and suppressed. Men are taught by Christ, through His church, to live self-sacrificial lives, serving, rather than being served, and submitting their wills, to His. It is no accident that the earlier mythology saw Christian symbols such as the cross or the Eucharist as being the ONLY effective means of combating the vampire; symbols that are routinely ridiculed as being ineffective in ALL modern movies and books. Whether they realize it or not, the contemporary producer or writer is actually making a profound statement about the role of Christianity in modern society; it is not some half-baked attempt at political correctness, but the realization that Christianity no longer provides the basic morality of society that is being attacked.

And without that Christian moral consensus, men tend to become consistent with their basic nature-and evil flourishes in the world. It is no accident that vampirism in films and literature is closely associated with violence against women in particular; the unlawful hunger for brutal sexual power, over another man’s wife or daughter.

But the sexual aspects are simply one manifestation of the deeper problem. Apart from a few superstitious people living in almost forgotten parts of Eastern Europe, no one fears the vampire today as a genuine entity. But the same philosophy and ethics behind the vampire are taught in every university and college in America and practiced in the personal ethics of most Westerners; Man is his own god, he can have what he wants on his own terms, because there is no universal moral code that binds all men.

Thus, the rejection of Biblical Christianity, and the search for morality apart from Christ, must inevitably lead us to the ethics of the vampire; seduction if possible, brutal rape if necessary, for nothing can transcend the individual’s will. And while these terms are provocative and possibly even offensive to some, only they carry the full range of emotive response to the reality of the vampire ethic being worked out in every area of life. From the university professor seducing his students into a meaningless worldview, to the corporate raider, raping a company for his assets, to the politicians who use both techniques to acquire and maintain their position, all are engaged in the same vampiric effort to exercise unlawful power over others.

The vampire as myth no longer has the power to frighten us; familiarity does breed contempt. But the vampire as ethic is as real as your local prison; and most frightening of all, this ethic is become mainstream. Modern Western culture has no defense against the vampire ethic because philosophically, they have rejected the only worldview that can consistently combat it. By the sovereign grace of God, He has chosen to restrict how consistent men become with their vampire ethic, but how long will he be patient with a rebellious and wicked people? The lands of Egypt, Canaan, Babylon, Greece, and Rome were all finally judged and destroyed because despite the local differences, at heart they had accepted the Tempter’s lie and adopted the vampire ethic. Each of these societies glorified in death, occultism, slavery, sexual debauchery and tyranny; and each, according to God’s time table were overthrown. Let us pray then, that God gives grace and a new revival or religion, lest we find that the vampire has returned and taken up residence next door.

Possibly Related Posts:

The Bible and Ghosts

Rev Brian Abshire — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 19:14:24 +0000

Of Ghosties and Ghoulies and Things that Go Bump in the Night

As far back as anthropologists can track human legends, the belief in ghosts and spirits is already present. From a humanist, materialist perspective, “animism” (the idea that rocks, streams, trees, etc. are inhabited by invisible “spiritual” entities) is asserted to be the first religion. Primitive man supposedly created the concept to explain what was otherwise inexplicable by attributing “supernatural” causes to what we “know” today to be “natural” effects. Part of that explanation process included what happened to man and animals that had died. It is no accident that in many ancient languages, the words for “soul” and “spirit” are derived from the ones for “breath” or “life” since the most visible differences between the dead and the living is that the dead no longer breathes. Therefore at death, the “breath” or “spirit” had departed the body – and the inevitable questions then arose; where did it go, was it still around and what might it do to the living?

Hence, according the humanist/materialist view, ancient humans quickly concluded that it was possible that these departed “spirits” just MIGHT choose to hang around and cause some sort of mischief unless properly propitiated. This might entail special funerary rites, sacrifices, shamanism; the particulars do not matter so much as the idea that this universal belief in “ghosts” was the result of a psychological coping mechanism to attempt to control the uncontrollable.

The Scriptures in some ways, actually supports this recreation of antiquity. From Genesis, we know that God “breathed” life into inanimate matter to create life; and it is reasonable to assume that sinful men quickly perverted His revelation into something approaching the anthropologists’ view of early human religion. The difference is that man devolved in his religious beliefs from Theism to polytheism to animism. However, every culture, no matter how widely separated in distance or time from each other, has some sort of belief in “spirits;” and concern or even fear that the spirits of the dead could return to earth and affect the living in some way. In cultures that worshipped their ancestors, such “spirits” had to be remembered and honored, lest they curse the living. In other cultures, the “spirits” were seen as more malevolent, hating the living for possessing all the things that were no able to enjoy.

And this belief in “ghosts” is not restricted to the dim, dark recesses of pre-scientific cultures or third world nations. Researchers at Baylor University found that 37% of those surveyed in modern America believed places can be haunted. Almost 20% believed it is possible to communicate with the dead. Clearly, there is a difference between people believing something to be true from whether or not it is actually true; but it is telling that in the most humanistic, materialistic and “scientific” society in human history, so many people retain a belief in ghosts.

Do ghosts actually exist? Can the spirits of the departed return to haunt people or places? Can the living communicate with the dead? The Bible actually gives us some evidence that such things may be possible. For example, Deuteronomy 18:11 specifically forbids “mediums, spiritists or one who calls up the dead.” The language here is important; the text does not say those who pretend to do these things or even attempt to do them, but the actual practice; which seems to imply that some people were actually communicating with the “dead,” in some way. Granted, the modern spiritualism movement has been thoroughly debunked from the time of Harry Houdini; he exposed their cheap tricks almost a hundred years ago. And no matter how popular that “Crossing Over” fellow might be, he uses the same tired old techniques to confuse the gullible while making some money and a reputation for himself. As we saw in the chapter on the authenticity of occult phenomenon, for a long time, there have been many rewards offered to anyone who can demonstrate “psychic” or “occult” powers under controlled circumstances; rewards that go unclaimed.

Yet nevertheless, there are a lot of people who solemnly testify that they saw or heard something that does not fit within the standard, normal means of explanation. Like UFO’s, apparently, sometimes, some people do see something that seems to defy naturalistic explanations. Now, there is a difference between a phenomenon and the explanation of a phenomenon; i.e., a person may experience something real but their explanation of that experience may be contrary to fact. For example, if one is home alone at night and hears “footsteps” upstairs, a person MAY think they are hearing a ghost when in reality there may be some other, purely natural explanation. The sound may have been real; but the interpretation can be completely fallacious. In my own experience, I knew people who insisted that a particular location was haunted; they heard something as if someone was walking up an aisle banging on a series of pipes. What they heard was perfectly accurate; but it was not a spirit, but an old style steam furnace! As the steam traveled from the boiler to the various radiators, it caused the metal to expand with an audible “bang!” But for people who had always lived with forced air heaters, they had never encountered that phenomenon before so they tried to explain it according to their own beliefs. Since they were already predisposed to believe that this particular place was “haunted” (and to be honest, this particular venue was a very creepy place), anything out of the “ordinary” become evidence for a ghost; even something as simple as steam running through some pipes.

However, not every phenomenon can be made to so easily fit within a naturalistic explanation. We could spend the rest of this essay examining various solemn, eye witness testimonies made by sincere, sober people who saw something that simply does not fit within modern, materialist categories. So is there anything to all the ghost stories that have been passed down through the years?

For the classic materialist, the supernatural by definition, cannot exist; and therefore anything that is actual phenomenon must fit within his own categories. Attempts to reduce the supernatural into naturalistic categories have been on-going for over a hundred years. Many universities offer courses in “parapsychology” which studies everything from Extra Sensory Perception to Ghost Hunting. The “true believers” faithfully take readings of strange electromagnetic fields, record “electronic voice phenomenon” (where supposedly “ghosts” talk on tape recorders), use thermal imagery to take heat signatures and a host of other techniques trying to capture “evidence” of ghosts. While the most charitable assessment of their endeavors would have to conclude, “Not Proven,” the “faithful” still try to show that somehow, the supernatural is just another under-explored aspect of the “natural” world.

But what if the problem is that the supernatural itself is simply beyond the materialist’s ability to properly perceive reality as it has been revealed? As Christians, we have God’s inerrant, infallible Word that reveals things about the world that transcends what can be understood from a purely materialist perspective. God is “invisible;” that is, not able to be perceived by human senses. Furthermore, there is an entire realm of existence that transcends the material universe; a realm “inhabited” by God, His Holy Angels and rebellious spiritual entities opposed to Him and His righteous rule. Christians begin with the assumption that God exists and that what He revealed is true. Materialists begin with the assumption that reality is only that which allows itself to be studied in the scientist’s laboratory. Both worldviews begin with assumptions.

The Bible is clear that the problem is never a lack of evidence, but the ability to properly understand and interpret the evidence; Romans 1:18ff tells us that sinful men suppress the truth in unrighteousness. The evidence of God’s existence is written in the very fabric of creation as well as on our hearts; but wicked men refuse to admit that it is even evidence!

Therefore, when it comes to the subject of determining whether ghosts exist, the materialist is handicapped because he either refuses to acknowledge the very possibility or deliberately suppresses or distorts any evidence he does find in order to make it fit within the parameters of his own preconceived worldview. The “Ghost Hunters” may take all the readings, recordings and photographs they want; the strict materialist will either demand MORE “evidence” or discount whatever they find as never being convincing enough. Even if a ghost walked into a laboratory and answered all the questions a hard headed materialist wanted, the only thing that would happen would be a new theory created to make the supernatural phenomenon fit within a materialist worldview.

But that is the problem, isn’t it? Ghosts do NOT show up on cameras (the ones that do, always turn out to be either hoaxes, camera problems, or have other “normal” explanations). Mediums are fakes and con artists. In fact, when reviewing the actual “evidence,” the most convincing always seems to come down to reliable, sober people experiencing something that defies a materialist explanation.

As mentioned previously, if you hear hoof beats in the distance, expect horses, not zebras. In other words, when trying to determine the cause of anything, the most likely explanation is the simplest, most “normal” one. If pipes are clanking in the middle of the night, it is probably due to metal expanding from heat; not a ghost. If stairs are creaking, it is more likely to be wood contracting in the cool of the evening, rather than a spiritual presence walking down the steps. If one wakes up in the middle of the night and sees a form in one’s bedroom, it is more likely to be a misfiring of the brain coming out of a dream state than a supernatural haunting.

However, having said that; the Bible does apparently provide some evidence that in at least certain situations, there is a phenomenon that appears to be something very similar to what we call “ghosts.” First, we know that man is more than just flesh and bone; he has an invisible aspect that continues on after death. Secondly, as mentioned previously, there is a whole category of activities that are expressly prohibited that deal with communicating with the dead – not just the attempt. Therefore apparently, at least some mediums and spiritualists in Bible times were contacting something outside of the material world. Thirdly, we do have the “Witch of Endor” who called up Samuel. At least in this one case, she actually succeeded; the text says, “When she saw Samuel…” (1 Sam 28:12). This seems to strongly imply that she was not just faking something but actually “conjured” Samuel from the dead. Furthermore, Saul then has a discussion with Samuel which again, pretty clearly implies that this was a real event and not just another con job.

Fourthly, from New Testament revelation we know that before the resurrection of our Lord Jesus, Hades (i.e. the “Grave” in Greek or “sheol” in Hebrew) was a place divided into two sections; apparently the righteous inhabited one place called “Abraham’s Bosom” while the wicked were in a place of torment (Luke 16:22ff). We also know that after the resurrection, the Apostle Paul said that to be absent from the body was to be present with the Lord (Phil 1:23) and that when the Lord Jesus rose from the dead and ascended into heaven, He led the captives out of captivity (Eph 4:8). Without going to far with speculation, it seems reasonable that before the Incarnation, all souls were held in a common spiritual realm (called “The Grave”) until the resurrection whereupon the righteous were brought into the presence of God – presumably because the price for their sins had now been paid.

However, what we do not have in the Bible is any evidence that the spirits of men are somehow trapped here on earth, continuing to inhabit in some immaterial form, the material plane. The souls of the righteous are with the Lord Jesus. The souls of the reprobates are imprisoned, waiting their final judgment. There is no Biblical evidence that some of these spirits are allowed out of their prison to haunt houses or visit their living relatives. In fact, the Luke passage pretty clearly denies this; even though the rich man and Lazarus could see each other, a great gulf existed between them; Abraham says it is impossible for even spirits in the same realm to visit each other across the great divide. When the rich man begs for Abraham to send Lazarus back to the living to warn his brothers about their coming fate, Abraham refuses because they already had Moses and the prophets; if they would not listen to THEM, then they would not listen to Lazarus.

This tale the Lord Jesus tells also shoots a hole through most of the theories modern people have about ghosts. Usually, the explanation for a haunting is that the deceased had issues that were never resolved in life and therefore got “trapped” somewhere between the physical plane and the afterlife. However, notice the assumption here; that “crossing over” into that afterlife is a desirable thing. While that might be true for the righteous; it is not so for the wicked. Those who reject God’s free offer of salvation are judged for their sins – death is NOT a good thing for them; it is a place of torment and suffering for eternity. However, the modern spiritualist explanation denies the gospel, denies the need for salvation, and thus denies the need for Jesus. Therefore to accept their explanation is to implicitly accept a view of death that is contrary to God’s own revelation; it is a way of making the death of Jesus unnecessary. So if “ghosts” are not the spirits of the departed who have not yet passed over to the afterlife, what are they?

Now, everything the Bible tells us is true; but the Bible does not tell us everything we want to know. There are areas of knowledge that God has given to us to discover by exercising dominion over the earth. Hence, there are true things we can learn by studying His work in creation; things He did not specifically reveal in His Word (e.g., the principles of mathematics, or the “laws” of motion, the speed of light, the use of the arch as an architectural tool, etc.). However, there are some aspects of truth into which He has forbidden us to delve; and ghosts, spirits, divination and magic are among them. God considers these things “detestable” and was the primary reason why He ordered the Canaanites destroyed as a culture. He warned Israel about copying these pagan practices and that He would destroy them if they disobeyed. The most wicked kings in Israel’s (and later, Judah’s) history, however disobeyed Him, practicing witchcraft, demonism, occultism and consorting with the “dead;” and both nations were destroyed as a direct result.

Therefore, there could be spiritual phenomenon that people sometimes encounter – sometimes unwittingly or unintentionally – phenomenon that is explained by “ghost stories.” Perhaps in certain places, the barrier between the material and spiritual realms is broken and “something” leaks through. Certainly, the fear, horror and dismay so common in “ghostly” encounters might be explained as something we might expect from unredeemed souls crying out in spiritual pain. Perhaps there are some undiscovered physical mechanisms by which traumatic events in life leave can behind a “psychic image” that certain people can “feel” or even “see” if the conditions are right. The point is, we do not know; and more importantly, God specifically says that this whole area of investigation is off limits to us. There are just some things that we are not supposed to know. No sane, reasonable man would give a two year old child a loaded gun and let him play with it. Sure, when the child is older, he should be taught how to safely handle and use a weapon; but at that time, he simply lacks the maturity to deal with the responsibility that a weapon demands. In the same way, perhaps this area of “knowledge” is closed to us because we are just not ready as this stage of history to handle it responsibly.

And of course, the reason we are forbidden to explore this area might be that in that spiritual realm, intelligent, invisible entities really do exist; entities that hate God and us – who wish us harm – and whose purpose is deception and deceit. The Adversary has lied to us from the beginning; and his minions work to deceive people away from the truth. Therefore, it is highly possible that we are forbidden to investigate the realm of the dead because there are demons there waiting… At best we will be deceived; at worst, we might discover that the demons can “cross over” and make themselves at home.

There certainly does seem to be a connection between an obsessive interest and involvement with the occult and serious personality disorders. The materialist will argue that only people whose thinking is already bizarre would even entertain the possibility of the supernatural. However, it could be that the more one involves one’s self in occult activity, the more one opens one’s self to demonic confusion and deception. In the few instances of demonic possession recorded in the Scriptures, bizarre thinking is the least of the symptoms; demons literally can drive people crazy.

No, not everyone who tries to contact Grandmother via an Ouija board or medium goes insane; most are simply deceived, wasting time and money on lies. But someone who BELIEVES in ghosts and actively seeks them out just might discover that the “Voice from Beyond” has a far darker agenda.

Conclusion

The best defense in spiritual warfare is neither modern technology, nor pagan rituals (which are common in films and television shows that deal with the occult) but rather faith in Christ and His Word. It is no accident that with the spread of Christianity, all forms of demonic activity disappear. With all due respect to the Roman church, the Bible contains no rituals for exorcism; but it does have a lot to say about repenting of sins, forgiving others, living at peace with all men and obeying Jesus as Lord.

Thus, for us as Christians, the existence of ghosts and other things that go bump in the night is simply a “non-issue.” We know that those that belong to the Lord are with Him, after they leave us. We have no evidence that the souls of other men wander the earth or inhabit our houses. If people do actually witness real phenomenon that cannot be adequately explained by “natural” means, then they do not have to give in to fear – they just have to make sure that they are right with the Lord; “Greater is He who is in you than he who is in the world.”

However, since God finds spiritualism so detestable, we must refrain from any involvement. As discussed in another chapter, occult films and books are not necessarily evil in and of themselves (the reasons why we conclude that will be developed later); but we certainly should be aware of the dangers. In short, if things are going “bump in the night” your house is NOT haunted by departed spirits seeking some resolution so they can move on to the afterlife. That is one of the lies the enemy uses to call into question God’s own revelation of what happens to us after death. No, the dead are dead; passed from this life to what awaits them in the next. If people are experiencing real phenomenon, phenomenon that cannot be explained, then it is time to seek out a pastor to deal with their own sins rather than an exorcist. The best research we have to date is that (normally speaking) people who are oppressed, distressed or possessed by hauntings of various kinds almost always have been involved in various forms of occult, New Age theology and practices. Get rid of the Tarot cards, Ouija boards, pendulums, and crystals; stop consulting palm readers, mystics and mediums and REPENT for all these things are detestable to God.

Finally, the motivation to seek out a spiritualist or medium is often because some people, even confessed Christians, refuse to accept God’s providence. Someone they loved has died, they miss them and they refuse to let them go. In the movie, “End of Days” a priest asks the main character why he no longer believes in God. The character responds that he used to believe in God until they had a disagreement; he wanted his wife and child to live and God wanted them to die. This was an amazing admission on the part of the writers; the man did not really stop believing - he just rejected God’s will. The real issue is that life does not revolve around us and our desires. Nobody is owed a long, pleasant life full of good things and warm memories. Death is the inheritance of every one of Adam’s children. It is only through Christ that we have the hope of the resurrection; where every tear will be dried, every sin forgiven, every pain forgotten. But sinful men do not want to submit to God on His terms; their rebellion may take many different forms – some may be overtly evil and depraved – others just refusing to accept His providence – but the rebellion remains as a testimony to Adam’s sin. Someone who wants to contact a dead loved one refuses to accept that death is God’s judgment on our sin – just as Saul repudiated God when he sought out the witch of Endor. No matter that Saul was a member of the covenant community, was personally chosen by God to be king and had received many examples of special revelation; in the end, Saul was a rebel. He refused to submit to God, to live life on God’s terms, descending into occultism and spiritualism because it promised him power. And therefore, he lost not only his kingdom and his life; he lost his soul as well.

Death is painful; and it hurts terribly to lose someone we love – and at the same time, our own death is certainly before each and every one of us. But our hope is not in contacting the dead but in rising with them to new life because Jesus has died in our place. The gospel removes the sting of death and robs the grave of its victory.

Possibly Related Posts:

How Authentic Is Occult Phenomenon?

Rev Brian Abshire — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 22:13:37 +0000

Pseudo-Occult Claims and Christian Gullibility

“There’s a sucker born every minute…” P.T. Barnum

Table of Contents

Evaluation Occult Claims
The Lack of Empirical Evidence
Examples of Pseudo-Occult Phenomenon
Conclusion

Evaluating Occult Claims

I remember my first exposure to “magic” when I was a young child, watching a television performer pull a rabbit out of a hat. The “magician” then did all of the other standard tricks which to be honest, are a bit lame in these days where illusionists make tanks, airplanes and even the Statue of Liberty disappear! But to a six year old, I was enthralled. The mature reader will understand and smile condescendingly at the gullibility of a child enthralled with magic tricks; but I clearly recall, at the time, being CONVINCED I was watching something wonderful and supernatural. MY older brothers of course were quick to destroy my enthusiasm telling me that these were all just “tricks;” even if they didn’t know exactly HOW they were done. And since my brothers loved debunking my childhood fantasies, (they had years before made sure that I knew Santa Claus was just Uncle Walt dressed up in a funny, red suit -well, the funny smell of that nasty brown liquid Uncle Walt liked to drink kind of gave it away) I was not allowed to believe in “real” magic for very long. But the whole concept still fascinated me.

When I was old enough to go to the library for the first time, I came across an old book that “exposed” the secrets of magic. That book became my favorite reading and I kept checking it over and over again, trying to master the art of the hand being quicker than the eye. Though I never got very good at “magic” (lacking good eye hand coordination-the word “clumsy” in the dictionary has my picture beside it) I did learn however how people can see, what they want to see, or assume things they ought not to assume. In God’s providence, this turned out to be a valuable skill in life because long before I ever learned the term “critical thinking,” studied the scientific method, or discovered presuppositional apologetics, God was teaching me valuable lessons about the incredible capacity for human self-deception. And no where is that self-deception so evident as in people giving undue credence to occult phenomenon.

Satan is the father of false religion and hence all occultism. As mentioned elsewhere in this book, the occult deals with “hidden” knowledge apart from God’s own revelation. Satan introduced occultism in the Garden of Eden when he gave Eve the “hidden” knowledge that God was jealous of man and wanted to prevent him from becoming like Him. If Adam and Eve would trust Satan, he would reveal to them how to become like God, determining good and evil for themselves. But Satan is a liar, and by believing his lies, sin and death was brought into the world.

Thus, when we evaluate claims of occult power, we have to understand, at the beginning, that Satan cannot be trusted, and therefore, the claims of the occult cannot be trusted. Just because someone CLAIMS to have occult power does not mean that they necessarily HAVE any power. Yet many Christians actually fear the occult for its claims to power, when in fact, there is little if any credible evidence that the claimant is anything more than a charlatan.

Furthermore, in so far as we know, the Adversary, though a fallen angel, and therefore possessing SOME power, is limited in His power, presence and knowledge. Unlike God, he cannot be everywhere, doing everything. Yet even many Christians sometimes ascribe omniscience and omnipotence to the evil one, assuming that he personally must be behind every evil act. Those who self-consciously seek satanic power therefore assume that the Adversary will make good on his promises. But why should he? If Satan can give one person power and deceive millions with false expectations, then he has accomplished his purposes! His major weapon, throughout Biblical history is deception, not frontal assaults against God. While reading about great, heavenly battles between angels and demons might make for great fiction, there is very little said about this kind of spiritual warfare in Scripture. Instead, the Adversary wins by deceiving people into giving him undue credence-leading them away from the knowledge and worship of the true God. If people THINK that they can get power from the Adversary, then some will follow him regardless of whether he ever delivers on his promise. And that accomplishes his purposes just as assuredly as if they actually HAD that power.

Clearly, as Christians, we acknowledge the existence of angelic and demonic forces in SOME form, in some places in some times. The real issue though is whether any specific phenomenon is actually occult in origin, or simply another lying trick of the Adversary. I will argue that in this essay, when people claim to have witnessed occult power, often, usually, they do not see what they think they see. They therefore unwittingly give aid and comfort to the enemy by believing his false claims.

Our God is the true God, and those who worship Him must do so in Spirit and Truth (Jn 4:24). Untruth, no matter how sincerely or piously held, cannot honor God, and inhibits our own sanctification. Therefore the pursuit of truth MUST be a regular goal of every Christian, in every area of life. And that certainly includes evaluating claims of occult phenomenon.

Self-Deception and Learning Theory

In my critical thinking skills course, I take a slightly different approach than many of my peers who emphasize instruction in formal logic. While the details are too long to go into here, my reason is that based on research studies on how people learn, and how they evaluate evidence, formal logic is often not helpful outside of a narrow set of circumstances. Unlike a geometric or algebraic formulae, real life does not come to us in isolated bits that we can independently verify to be “true” so that we have a firm foundation for creating a logical syllogism. Instead, we learn things from our parents, our teachers, our friends, and our own life experience. As a consequence, we might well reason logically from what we believe to be true, but if the premises are wrong, then the conclusion will be wrong, no matter how logically correct the process itself.

For example, everyone has convictions that they hold sincerely to be true. But what most people do not understand is that the very concept of “conviction” is a sociological and psychological phenomenon. None of us has the time or resources to investigate every claim that comes to our attention. Therefore, being bombarded every day with thousands of claims, all the way from “This breakfast cereal has all the nutrients you need for a healthy life” to “Bill and Susan are having marriage problems” to “the President’s policy in the Mid-East is failing” we have to find some way to organize and evaluate the data. Life is not a logical exercise and we never have ALL the facts before we are forced to make decisions. Therefore, we tend to develop convictions based upon the evidence of others. If we hear the same thing, from two or more sources, then we tend to accept the claim as “true.” If the people making those claims are authority figures, or people we like or trust, the likelihood of accepting them goes even higher. We trust our parents, friends, teachers, pastors, (and despite every reason to the contrary) even our favorite politicians not to lie to us.

Thus we can often have sincere convictions that are in reality based simply upon the testimony of others. But where did THOSE people get the information that made THEM believe what they believe? In short, what we believe about the nature of the world is often a vicious circle; we believe certain things, because other people believe those things, but the reason why THEY believe those things in part is because WE believe those things!

All of this has been empirically verified by solid research studies, done with good statistical analysis; and every psychology of learning student reads through the material at even the undergraduate level. Yet most people do not understand this dynamic and assume they have arrived at “truth” because their opinion matches everyone else’s. And for most areas of life, this short-cut works because we do have to trust other people, otherwise we could never do anything. We accept that food nourishes the body, and poisons kill it and what we have learned about the difference keeps us from intentionally drinking bleach or drain cleaner. Little children have not yet learned this distinction, and tragically, every year, some poison themselves.

So what are we to do? The basic rule of thumb is that strong claims require strong evidence. If in fact something IS true, then there ought to be strong evidence for it. A crucial aspect of my class on critical thinking is teaching students to require the evidence before accepting a claim. Just because everyone in your church or fellowship believes that a house is haunted, or someone is being plagued by demons, or that God is filling rotten teeth with gold, or raising people from the dead, does not mean that any of these things are true. We need to be like the Bereans and check out the evidence before accepting the claims.

In the same way, never under-estimate the human capacity for self-deception; we often want to believe things because it give us psychological or emotional comfort; regardless of whether it is true or not. Research studies have repeatedly shown that humans are likely to attune to information that supports their basic beliefs, and ignore data which might undercut it. Hence, not all evidence is given equal weight. We have all personally witnessed this aspect of human nature when arguing some point with even close friends. There are just some things you cannot discuss with some people because their minds are made up and NOTHING you say will convince them otherwise. They believe all sorts of erroneous things, and no amount of research, facts, or arguments will convince them otherwise. Usually, this means that if we want to remain friends, we refrain from discussing certain subjects.

But the reality of course is that ALL of us have the same tendency to be stubborn in certain areas. And one of the reasons why we cannot be convinced to change our opinions is the tendency to be selective in what we actually hear. In certain areas, we just discount the evidence that would undermine our position, while we subjectively place a great deal of emphasis on the evidence that supports our position.

Even more subtly, as we go through life, we are exposed to many different ideas, “facts” and concepts. Whether we realize it or not, we tend to pick and choose between these so that ideas or “facts” that support our basic presuppositions are heard and adopted, while information that would require us to change our opinion are devalued or ignored. Thus sometimes Christians will tune out evidence that calls the authenticity of occult phenomenon into question because evidence of the occult is reverse evidence for Christianity. If occultism and demonism are true, then logically, Christianity must also be true. Therefore we are predisposed to accept claims of the occult as being authentic, despite what might otherwise be very weak or even non-existent evidence.

Now, to be fair, there are also those Christians who discount ALL evidence of the occult just because they graduated from certain institutions where the supernatural was devalued and ridiculed. Many of my professors in college and seminary appeared to fall into this camp. For them, the occult was slightly embarrassing; they had to acknowledge the reality of the supernatural because they were teaching in supposedly evangelical institutions, but their own graduate work was done in places that had long ago rejected the supernatural character of the Scriptures. Therefore, several instructors, in class, proclaimed that demonic possession was in reality merely some sort of psychopathology that was just misunderstood by the writers of Scripture. And of course, since I was a dual major in psychology AND theology, I was better equipped to discuss psychopathology than the average theology professor who only knew what his own professors had mentioned to him. This led to some “interesting” class-room discussions-but the point of course is that the tendency to reject information that conflicts with one’s basic presuppositions works both ways.

The solution of course is to have the CORRECT presuppositions in the first place. God’s word is self-attesting and the ultimate standard of authority. We start with faith in God’s own revelation and work out the implications from there. Therefore, when evaluating the claims of the occult, we have an objective standard in Scripture. Clearly Scripture records genuine instances of occult phenomenon; demons do possess people, some sorcerers DO demonstrate supernatural power (such as the ones in Pharaoh’s court), therefore we MUST acknowledge that such things CAN exist. The only real question is whether or not a specific instance is actually occult in nature, or has a different explanation.

For example, there is a tendency for people to find relationships between events when no relationship actually exists. Again, this is a well documented aspect of human thinking. If people are shown a random series of dots on a page, and then told to find the hidden pattern, the average person WILL find the pattern, even if NO PATTERN ACTUALLY EXISTS! Our minds want to find meaningful relationships between events, and therefore, every day, we look at what happens in our lives and try to relate things together. OK, sometimes we get it right and sometimes we get it wrong; no harm, no foul, UNTIL we begin dealing with certain fundamental areas of life.

Say a person reads his horoscope and takes it seriously. Now first, this is an act forbidden by God but still common today, even among many sincere, professing Christians. To be honest, I prefer fortune cookies myself over astrology because the credibility of the information is just the same, and at least you get to eat the cookie. But if by random chance, something happens in your day that vaguely resembles the horoscope; the above principles all tend to confirm an irrational conviction of the predictive power of astrology.

First, if people around you give SOME credence to horoscopes, you are predisposed to believe it may have some “power.” Secondly the horoscope is deliberately written in such a way that it COULD apply to millions of different people; so the likelihood of it applying, in general to YOU is very high. Thirdly, because we attune to facts that tend to support our presuppositions, when the horoscope thus SEEMS to apply to you (and the odds are that they way it is written it cannot help but be applicable because it could apply to EVERYONE), we remember it, but when it gets things wrong, we tend to forget it. Fourthly, now that both our social environment and our presuppositions are reinforcing our convictions, add to that mixture, the tendency of trying to make sense out of what is essentially random information. there is a tendency to find SOMETHING in our life, that day that relates back to the “prediction.” If the horoscope says, “A friend will disappoint you today” then ANY time ANY person with whom we have the VAGUEST relationship does ANYTHING we do not like, it qualifies as a fulfillment and therefore reinforces our commitment to this belief!

And the cycle goes on; every time we receive some sort of “confirmation” of our basic presuppositions, it merely strengthens our commitment to that presupposition, making “discordant” data even less relevant and less likely to be dealt with. And of course there are other psychological mechanisms about human learning (for a detailed analysis, you’ll have to take my critical thinking course that all goes to demonstrate that sincerity of belief is no substitute for the truth. This is an oft neglected principle amongst many modern Christians; it is the depth of commitment you have to an idea that is more important than whether that idea has any basis in truth. Hence, many Christians are predisposed to accept the most outlandish claims without ever giving them even the slightest rational scrutiny.

Let me give another example. Recently, there was a prime-time special from the masked magician who reveals the secrets behind many popular illusions. This time however, he was exposing “psychic” phenomenon; and therefore the program especially caught my interest. In one of the “tests” he had a fake palm reader give five different people a “cold” reading using EXACTLY the same script; a script that had been deliberately worded so as to apply to as many people as possible. Each of the “victims” of course believed they were talking to a “real” psychic and were utterly astounded by the woman’s “incredibly detailed” knowledge of their past life experiences, and their present personality and problems. These people were absolutely CONVINCED that they were experiencing a genuine psychic event, even though it was a scam.

And though some will undoubtedly be offended by this next observation, I offer it for consideration and evaluation. Many times I have seen pseudo-occult practices with the same, lack of rational analysis actually being TAUGHT in Christian churches. Visualization as a means of obtaining answered prayers, prophecies that are about as relevant and accurate as the daily horoscope, “words of knowledge” that depend upon the same over-generalizations as palm-readers, etc., all bear witness that the same phenomenon in a gypsy tea-room is going on INSIDE the church. Some Christian practitioners might be self-deceived about what they are really doing; but enough exposes of faith-healing ministries has been done over the years to show that this is just another variation of the con-game. When a “healer” plants stooges in the audience, gathers information about potential subjects BEFORE the meeting, uses concealed radios to transmit that information while supposedly receiving a “word of knowledge” and then proclaims a “healing” that cannot be verified by an objective medical doctor, meanwhile making himself rich in the process; I think its time for Christians to wake up and realize they are being scammed. God is not honored by such displays, and the Christian refusal to think critically BECAUSE they want to “see” something supernatural is a sad commentary on the state of the church.

The Lack of Empirical Evidence

All legitimate human knowledge is based on two fundamental criteria; that which God Himself has revealed about His being, plans and purposes in Scripture, and that which we can learn from a detailed, empirical study of His creation. The Scriptures come first of course, because they give us the basic presuppositions by which we interpret sense experience. What we learn in creation can never contradict or overturn Scripture (even though some Christian college and seminary professors might be inclined to do so) because God Himself is the basis of all true knowledge. Therefore, if we want to know if something is true, we must be able to establish it either by appeal to the Scriptures, or prove it by direct observation.

Science is not an enemy of Christian faith but rather a supplement to it and is dependant upon Christian presuppositions to operate correctly; the secular scientist can only function by being inconsistent with his own presuppositions and borrowing philosophical capital from the Christian worldview. Science is a method of observing creation and ensuring that our theories about that creation can be sustained. Science of course is limited in what it can do, but the rational process has allowed man unprecedented power over the natural world that our ancestors would have considered “miraculous.”

The real purpose of scientific investigation is to ensure that what we think we know to be true, can be demonstrated to be true. For example, for thousands of years, everyone assumed that life could come from non-life. This presupposition was universal and verified in every day experience; if you left some exposed to the air, eventually maggots would crawl out; how much clearer could it be than that? This basic assumption colored our whole view of the natural world and in many respects, laid the foundation for modern evolutionary thought.

Then, one day, some bright boy decided to test the hypothesis by keeping meat free from outside contaminants. He placed the meat in a jar where flies and other insects could not reach it and surprise, surprise; the meat did not grow maggots. Life it seems cannot come from non-life. However, since the presupposition was so firmly implanted in the popular mind, even today, otherwise brilliant, well educated secular scientists insist that at ONE point in history, life DID come from non-life. He has to postulate this because otherwise he cannot exclude God from creation which is his deepest desire of rebellious men (Rms 1:18).

The point here though is that science gives us a mechanism to ensure that what we think is true actually IS true because it can be demonstrated repeatedly. Therefore, if occult phenomenon is “real” then there ought to be repeatable evidence for it. Scientists have been studying various types of occult phenomenon for more than a century and thus far, no actual PROOF of its reality has been sustained.

Granted, as Gary North points out in his book, “Unholy Spirits” part of the reason is that scientists themselves are predisposed by their materialistic presuppositions to discount evidence of the occult because it does not fit into their worldview. Any scientist who DOES find evidence of occult phenomenon is likely to find his grant money disappearing, or his tenure in question. But even so, there are foundations who want to support occult research, and there is a lot of money to be made by PROVING that someone really does have ESP, or that a particular house is actually haunted, etc. But where is the evidence? Some like Dr. North will insist that the evidence is there but actively suppressed. However, both the materialist scientist and the sincere investigator such as Dr. North are BOTH susceptible to the same psychological dynamics we mentioned earlier about how people form strong convictions. Could it be that BOTH sides attune to the data that supports their presuppositions and ignores the data which might over-turn them?

There are many weird, bizarre and unusual things that are on the fringes of scientific enquiry, but positive evidence that any particular person is actually demonstrating occult powers is lacking. Repeatedly, when careful investigation is done of some claim, trickery, misdirection, and mis-interpretation of the evidence undermines the occultist claims. People can CLAIM to demonstrate all sorts of powers; investigators can CLAIM to have WITNESSED those powers, but when subjected to the rigorous controls of scientific study, none of those claims to date can stand the test. Are demons afraid of the scientist laboratory for some reason?

There are many examples that could be used here, but perhaps the most potent are those dealing with psychic surgery; something Dr. North gives a lot of space to. He insists that people actually insert knifes into patients’ eyes, remove tumors, cure diseases etc., and that these could NOT be faked. However, every magician can perform the same functions through misdirection. As an outsider, I cannot speak authoritatively whether any particular psychic healer is a fraud or might actually have some sort of demonic power. All I know is that NONE of them have passed the stringent tests of scientific study. Thus to accept someone’s testimony that “So and so can plunge his hands into a living body” seems naive at best; where is the proof that the “healer” is actually DOING what he CLAIMS to be doing? I haven’t seen it, and neither has anyone with a shred of scientific credibility. Therefore, as the old maxim says, “if you hear hoof steps in the distance, it is more likely to be horses, than zebras.” The best explanation is the more normal explanation.

If psychic healers, or astrologers, palm-readers, spiritualists or anyone else claiming occult powers actually HAD them, then where is the scientific proof, apart from anecdotal evidence? If they had them, then why can they not SHOW them in ways that would convince even the most skeptical observer? The fact that after a hundred and fifty years of serious inquiry and not ONE claim has been sustained leads me to the conclusion that occult power is far more limited than we think.

And in a way, this makes sense given the two premises we made at the beginning of this essay. First, Satan is a liar and therefore we ought to distrust ANYTHING he says about himself. Secondly, he is limited, and what point in giving power, when by confusion, lies, false thinking and human gullibility he can convince people without actually having to DO anything? Therefore while in general, Christians are required to believe in the existence of the occult, we must be very careful in saying any specific event is evidence of that existence.

Examples of Pseudo-Occult Phenomenon

Just for the record’s sake, let us look briefly at some “occult” phenomenon that in reality have perfectly “natural” explanations. The first are all concerned with something scientists have noted for years about the relationship between the mind and the body called ideomotor action. Ideomotor action is the unconscious moving of the body, especially the hand. If you hold your hand straight out, the average person will see a slight tremor (if it is more than a slight tremor, you should see a physician!). All of us have probably been so agitated, frightened, irritated at times that we were literally “shaking.” Others of us have found our hands doing things we did not consciously tell them to do when we were lost in thought.

This relationship between mind and body actions can be used to simulate certain occult phenomenon IF the people involved do not understand these principles. For example, the OUIJA board was a game invented at the end of the 19^th century when spiritualism was a hot topic. It has no ancient, occult association other than someone trying to capitalize on a market demand. At a time when spiritualism was all the rage, the inventor (the name “ouija” comes from the French and German words for “yes”) made up a game that young people could play to supposedly contact the spirits. OK, we recognize this from the start as being occult to the core, but do people ACTUALLY contact spirits or demons with ouija boards? There is certainly a lot of personal, eye-witness testimony to people playing with ouija boards getting creepy answers and everyone involved denies that THEY moved the little pointer; so what is?

Well, two explanations; first, never discount the possibility that your friend is playing with your head and moving the pointer; from personal experience I KNOW that often such messages have their origin in the perfectly natural inclination of teenagers to mess with people’s minds. However, even if this explanation is discounted, ideomotor action may well account for the rest. Your hand is always trembling; when placed LIGHTLY on ANYTHING, the movement of the hand will tend to move the object. Two such people placing their hands on a light object will therefore tend to move the object. If for example you place your hands on the pointer, and felt it move, apparently ON ITS OWN, this would tend to make you feel anxious, excited, nervous, thus increasing the ideomotor actions of your own hands. Ouija boards often give “messages” that are pure gibberish, what we would expect from random ideomotor actions, but what about those times when the message is clear and meaningful? Have the people made contact with the “other side?”

Not necessarily; again, it has to do with the way that the mind and body interact with one another. The human brain has two hemispheres; one which controls language, reason, and logic and one that focuses more on the spatial, emotions and conceptual. Normally, these two aspects work together; you see a drawing of a dog and you say the word, “dog.” But with a little training, you can disconnect these portions so that one side does not really interact with the other. Thus with a ouija board, you empty your mind, focus on nothing, and try to put yourself in the right frame of mind basically disconnecting the rational from the attitudinal. Then, amazingly, the ideomotor action starts moving the pointer and a mysterious message is spelled out. But the best explanation is that rather than contacting a spirit, in reality, you have just disassociated one hemisphere of the brain from another-without even realizing it.

Pendulums, dowsing, table tilting and automatic writing; are probably all best explained by this connection of ideomotor action with right and left hemisphere disconnections. Now the point here, as was made in the chapter on the Christian and the Occult is that the prohibition against ALL of these kinds of divination activities has NOTHING to do with whether they actually work, but that they are all attempts to obtain knowledge in unlawful ways. Pendulums are used by many people to predict the sex of an unborn child by letting a needle swing over a pregnant woman’s stomach. If it swings in a circle it means one thing, if it swings back and forth it means another. Those who use it will CLAIM to be incredibly accurate. But again, where is the proof? People tend to remember times when the pendulum was “right” and forget about the times when it was “wrong.” And after all, you’ve always got a fifty-fifty chance anyway; odds no casino or racetrack will ever give you!

But the real explanation is that the slight tremors in the hand cause the needle to either swing in a circle or go back and forth. Any relationship to the sex of the baby is purely coincidental. Dowsing is trying to find water with sticks or diving rods. The adherents will claim to be successful; but in any place where there is a good water table, ANYWHERE they pick to dig a well will eventually find water. But again, the times when they are right are remembered, the times when the well was dry was forgotten.

Many people have been astounded by fire walking which is just basic physics. The coals are allowed to burn down and the person “walking” actually minimizes the amount of time his feet are in contact with the coals. As a result, his feet do not get hot enough to actually burn. But it looks impressive to the gullible to suggest these people have some strange, “mind over matter” ability.

Mediums, psychics and fortune tellers have been exposed by so many people, so many times that there really is no reason to go into detail about them here other then what we have already mentioned. However, when they ARE accurate, it is usually because they have previous knowledge or done research on the mark. In some spiritualist “temples” large data bases of potential customers have been found that gives the “medium” all the information the need to accomplish his task; which is to separate a fool and his money as quickly and painlessly as possible.

One of my favorite examples of “occult” powers was the infamous spoon bending ability of Uri Geller and his imitators. Though proclaimed as a genuine psychic by many true believers, eventually he was exposed as a fraud, using slight of hand to disguise the fact that he had already bent the spoon before anyone noticed. Many supposed “proofs” of psychic or occult powers have been exposed this way. Telekinesis, the ability to move physical objects with “mental” energy has never been substantiated. All of the best cases have been exposed as ever new, subtle frauds where someone used perfectly natural methods to convince gullible investigators they had supernatural powers.

Many Christians untrained in the deceptive tricks used by pseudo-occult personalities unwittingly given needless credibility to charlatans and deceivers; possibly as we noted before because evidence for the occult is reverse evidence for Christianity. Furthermore, because we assume, based on God’s word that the occult is real, we EXPECT to see convincing evidence of it. In my library I have a number of serious investigative books by such men as Kurt Koch, Tim Timmons, Gary North, etc., who sincerely and Biblically want to relate a Biblical worldview to what they perceive to be contemporary phenomenon. Yet, when one looks for the actual EVIDENCE to support all the claims of hauntings, possessions, demonic oppression, ultimately it is far too often anecdotal and subjective and not only open, but actually supportive of other explanations.

Giving supernatural explanations for natural phenomenon can actually hurt all the people involved. Let me put it this way; if a man came to me saying he heard demons whispering in his ear, telling him to commit vile, evil acts, I would FIRST recommend that he see a good physician who could prescribe anti-psychotics. I know that certain forms of schizophrenia are actual biochemical disruptions in the brain and can be treated by the right kind of medication. Hearing voices is one of the signs of brain dysfunction-and not as many assume, something the Bible associated with possession. Demons must be allergic to Thorazine or other major drugs because people claiming to be possessed, often get remarkably better if the physician can fix the problems in their brain chemistry.

However, if such a person did NOT respond to medical treatment, and demonstrated other aspects the Bible associates with demonic possession, I would consider it as a real possibility. But simply because someone CLAIMS that there is a supernatural element to a certain phenomenon, does not mean the explanation is the correct one.

Conclusion

The above was written, not to debunk the existence of the occult, but rather to put things in perspective. Even if 99.9% of occult claims to power are erroneous, they are still things that God says He detests and from which Christians must keep themselves separate. It is no coincidence that insanity, depression, suicidal inclinations and immorality are all closely associated with those who are involved in ANY aspect of the occult. Whether this means that mentally unstable are drawn TO the occult, or that involvement in the occult LEADS to mental problems; either way, we ought to stay as far away from it as we can. Christians need never fear demons or spirits, but they ought to fear the God who specifically warned them to stay away from such areas.

Being deceived is always bad even if the person so deceived is sincere. Truth is something worthy of pursuit because it is a communicable attribute of God. Therefore, we need to get rid of the pious lie that sincerity is a substitute for truth. Sometimes, attributing supernatural explanations for naturally occurring phenomenon can cause severe damage in a family or relationship. It may cover up serious problems that require good Biblical counseling. Over the years, more than a few people have come to my counseling office asking me to drive out the demons of lust, pride, arrogance, fear, etc., that were haunting them. It does not need to be said that never ONCE was the problem an inner demon, but a heart that was in rebellion to God. Dealing with the ethical was sufficient to restore a person to a sound and sober lifestyle where God was honored and their lives given stability and hope.

Furthermore, giving undue credence to the occult CAN lead to involvement with the occult or seduce other Christians into dabbling with the occult. When a person is under a severe trial, when a child is sick and the doctors cannot help, when the situation is desperate and a little knowledge of the future could give great peace and hope, when a loved one has died and left certain issues unresolved, even Christians can be tempted to visit a psychic healer, palm reader or medium. They turn to such people because they believe they actually have the power to help them, even though God has forbidden us to do so. And like Saul, who lost his kingdom and life for consulting a medium, we risk bringing God’s own wrath down on our heads for participating in something He finds “detestable.”

Because God is real, Satan is also real; because God so chose, He has allowed Satan limited power. And on occasion, the Adversary or his demons might demonstrate that power in various ways in creation. But the Adversary’s purpose is to deceive people away from knowledge of the true God by any means possible. If he can con people into giving anti-Christian religion credibility by giving the illusion of occult power, he will-and we will suffer as a result.

Being overly concerned about occultism prevents people from getting on with the serious work of growing, exercising dominion and sharing Christ. On more than one occasion, when the enemies of Christ were working hard against His Kingdom and rule, Christians were more concerned about “praying against the powers of darkness” than they were actually obeying Christ in their personal lives, relationships and churches. The lure of the occult for the Christian is that like our father Adam, it places the responsibility for evil on forces outside of our own ethical failure; “the devil made me do it” is not just a cliché but an actual defense mechanism for many Christians. The problem with a person’s lust is not a demon, but their own refusal to follow Biblical principles of sanctification. The problem with a person’s abuse of alcohol or drugs is not a demon of addiction but a lack of self-control and submission to King Jesus. The reason why a church is not growing has nothing to do with the local coven of witches making satanic incantations against the Kingdom of God, but with Christians learning to persevere through adversity and humbling themselves before His providence.

All of the above are actual explanations given to me over the years for why people were experiencing various problems in life and ALL were counter productive to actually solving the problems and seeing the victory Christ has won for us and will exercise through us. As long as we blame demons, witches, or the occult for our problems, we can never deal with the sin and wickedness we inherited from our father Adam. The true key to victory over the occult is not exorcisms or “binding” the powers of darkness-but in humble submission to our God by knowing, loving and keeping His commands.

Possibly Related Posts:

The Christian and the Occult- Chapter Titles

Rev Brian Abshire — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 21:46:19 +0000

We are posting some chapters from one of our newer, smaller books that has generated a lot of interest from our readers. Email us to recieve the entire book in one easy to print document. And thanks for remembering us in your giving.

Table of Contents

The Nature of Occultism
How Authentic Is Occult Phenomenon?
The Bible and Ghosts
The Christian and Vampires
The Christian and Were-Wolves
Occultism as Prime-Time Entertainment
Gnosticism, Secret Societies and Conspiracy Theories
UFO’s and the Bible
Christian Rant: “Potty” about Potter

Possibly Related Posts:

New Book! The Christian and the Occult

Rev Brian Abshire — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 21:35:04 +0000

Chapter One: The Nature of the Occult

The word “occult” means “hidden, concealed or secret” and refers to of such things as astrology, sorcery, magic, alchemy, etc that purports to give the practitioner esoteric knowledge; and with that knowledge, supernatural “powers.” Deuteronomy 18:9ff lays out God’s view of ALL occult activity, “When you enter the land which the Lord your God gives you, you shall not learn to imitate the detestable things of those nations. There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, one who uses divination, one who practices witchcraft or one who interprets omens or a sorcerer or one who cases a spell, or a medium or a spiritist or one who calls up the dead. For whoever does these things is detestable to the Lord and because of these detestable things the Lord your God will drive them out before you.”

Table of Reference:

Occultism as Power Religion
Types of Occult Activities
Occultism’s Worldview
Why the Resurgence of the Occult?
Dealing with the Occult

Clearly, God finds such activities as abominations, worthy of condemnation. In fact, He specifically states that the REASON why the Canaanites were to be destroyed was of their practice of the occult “arts”. We need to think carefully about this for a moment; was this just some obscure, ceremonial law that was relevant only to Old Testament Israel, or is there some equity today for modern Christians and the civil magistrate - How we answer this will have profound effects on our culture and our lives.

First, God hates occult activity SO much; he destroyed an entire nation just because they were deeply involved in it. Granted, ALL pagan nations are mired in the occult to some degree or another. In antiquity, Egypt was clearly committed to occult activity trying to mimic the miracles performed by Moses. There, God destroyed the entire nation through Divine judgments in the Ten Plagues. In the case of Canaan, He ordered the Israelites to be the vehicle of His judgment. Therefore SOME nations He destroys by His divine providence, while He entrusts the civil magistrates to inhibit it in others. But lest anyone think that His providence allows the modern magistrate off the hook, consider that occultism is like idolatry; God warns the civil magistrates in Romans 1:20ff that idolatry brings His curse on ALL societies, not just covenant ones like Israel. Therefore the civil magistrate, as a servant of God (Romans 13:1ff) WILL be held accountable to God on the Day of Judgment if they allow occultism to go unsuppressed; just as He holds idolatrous nations accountable. It is interesting in this light to note that even PAGAN nations, historically, often passed laws against witchcraft, sorcery, etc.

Secondly, modern cultures would do well to consider WHY God hates occultism so much. The essence of all occult activity is power through secret knowledge; power over the natural elements, over sickness and adversity, power over one’s enemies or simply power for power’s sake. From the beginning of human history, when Adam sought to be as God, wanting to determine good and evil for himself, wicked men have a “natural” bent towards the occult in the illusive search for power though secret knowledge. Gary North in many of his better books has identified the essence of Satanism as “Power Religion.” Biblical religion is based on submission to Almighty God, bringing our lives into conformity with His revealed will. Jesus said it this way, “He would be great among you must first become the servant of all.” Thus ethics is central to Biblical Christianity; as we serve God, and others, His power flows into us and through us – but it is always HIS power to do HIS will.

However rebellious Men, in a vain attempt to be as God, seek power apart from God. They want power for its own sake, to be used according to their own will because they want to BE God. They recognize that power can come through a strong arm, and hard work, but they also recognize that the essence of divinity is power over the “natural” world. Occultism is not a “short-cut” to power; acquiring occult power takes decades of dedicated training to master (see Carlos Castaneda) but rather an attempt to get to the “real” source of all power. The “universe” is assumed to be power in chaotic form, which by the proper rituals and procedures can be controlled by the will of men. Man thus recapitulates God’s actions in creation, imposing order on primeval chaos for His own will. Occultism thus is the inevitable religion of paganism as it represents sinful men’s attempt to become God.

Even pagan Hollywood understands this aspect of the occult; in the very first Arnold Schwarzenegger movie “Conan the Barbarian” James Earl Jones’ evil character begins his descent into wickedness by craving the “power of steel” and raids Conan’s village because of their reputation for making the best swords. Later on, in the climatic confrontation, Jones has given up on armies and steel because he discovered that the occult and religious ritual is more powerful than swords.

It is interesting that in this passage from Deuteronomy, God promises that He will raise up for His people a prophet like Moses who shall direct and guide His people. Jesus, who was the literal fulfillment of this prophecy demonstrated as a part of His divine nature, power over the demonic, the natural world and the future. All the things that shamans, witches, fortune tellers so avidly seek to obtain were demonstrated in the life and work of Jesus. Jesus was often accused by his enemies of being a sorcerer because He demonstrated supernatural power.

But an important distinction must be made between miracles and magic; miracles are God’s intervention into human events; magic is about men attempting to exercise supernatural power on their own terms. Magic is the power to invoke, summon, or control celestial/demonic forces to do one’s bidding for either “good” or evil while miracles are an act of God through a specific individual in order to authenticate or demonstrate His sovereignty. Miracles in Scripture are never random, events. If one carefully reads through the Book of Acts, even the Apostles and their authorized agents did not perform miracles on demand. Each recorded incident is specifically given to reveal something about God, His Son or His will. Magic on the other hand, is ALWAYS about obtaining and using supernatural power for one’s own purposes. Simon Magus was specifically condemned for his attempt to purchase the abilities the Apostles demonstrated.

Thus occult practices are “detestable” to God (Deut 18:12, EX 22:18) just because they are attempts to steal His glory and honor. They are inherently blasphemous because they attribute to men, that which is reserved to the Divine nature. Occultism thus places man’s faith in his ability to imitate the divine, ascribing to himself what only God can do.

In Biblical history, one can see how God judged Israel for violating this command. Occultism was one of the sins so severe that it deserved the death penalty in ancient Israel (Ex 22:18).Occultism was one of the reasons Saul lost His kingdom (1 Chn 10:13). By consulting the witch (better translation, “medium”) of Endor, Saul sought knowledge of the future apart from God. God would no longer speak to him, so he hired a medium to call up Samuel’s ghost. As a result, his apostasy was complete and he lost both his kingdom and his life the next day. Later on in Israel’s history, occultism was characteristic of Manasseh, the worst king of Judah (2 Chn 33:6) whose depravity was the final cause of their captivity in Babylon for seventy years. It is God’s irony that because of occultism (and idolatry) the remnants of Israel were enslaved for two generations in the heart of the most occult society in the ancient world! Finally, the New Testament states that people who are involved in the occult are excluded from heaven (Rev 21:8, 22:5).

Occultism as Power Religion

This relationship between power and religion is a recurring theme in Scripture. As creatures, we have been delegated legitimate power by God; the dominion mandate of Genesis 1:26ff clearly gives man the right to exercise dominion over the earth. But we ought to note two things about the dominion mandate; first, the purpose of that power was to glorify God, not to elevate men. By subduing the earth, men would extend the beauty, harmony and productivity of the Garden over the rest of creation, thus imaging God’s work in creation.

Secondly, the means by which men were to subdue the earth was by being fruitful and multiplying, not through some supernatural accumulation of power. Men though made in the image of God, are not His equals. Even prefect, sinless men were dependant creatures created to live within the limits of a physical universe. Their dominion over the earth would be accomplished by hard (but not onerous) work-work that would be shared by future generations building on the accomplishments of their ancestors.

But occultism by nature and definition is the attempt to obtain dominion on Man’s terms by unlawful methods and procedures. It was “hidden” from the average person, and only revealed to the “chosen” ones. The beginning of ALL occultism was the Serpent’s lie to Eve in the Garden. She had revealed knowledge about God and His will, but Satan offered “hidden” knowledge that God had supposedly kept from her. Satan called God’s character into question, stating that He wanted to keep certain knowledge from Adam and Eve, knowledge that would give them the power to be as God. Satan then graciously offered to share this knowledge; eating from the forbidden fruit would make her a God. Thus occultism appealed both to her vanity and desire to have power.

In many books and discussions today, those claiming to have occult powers often insist that they use them only for good and in some cases that they are actually doing God’s work! Popular television shows such as “Charmed” or “Angel” or “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” are heavily dependant upon occult forces working against evil for “good.” However, it is not just how a power is used but rather whether God glorified by its use. God and God alone can determine what glorifies His name, reveals His character and establishes right conduct. If God has forbidden us to use certain means even to a “good” end, then such practices are wrong. Thus there is no such thing as “white” magic. But the appeal is that the occultist’s “secret” knowledge and power takes precedence over God’s revelation; hence recapitulating the original sin in the Garden.

Types of Occult Activities

In the Deuteronomy passage, Moses identifies various types of occult activity which is specifically condemned by God. The first reference is to human sacrifice; i.e., “passing through the fire” and probably is a direct reference to Molech worship. In order to gain power from the god “Molech” (which probably comes from the word for “king” hence referring to the “King of Heaven” another blasphemous reference to the One True God) pagans would sacrifice their babies by casting them into a furnace that had been super-heated by fire. The babies would be instantly consumed and this demonstration of loyalty to the “god” would therefore presumably bring the god’s favor. That favor might be sufficient rain for a good crop, victory over enemies in battle, prosperity in business, etc.

It is not hard to see sacrificing children as an obscene parody of God offering His only begotten Son Jesus. Human sacrifice is thought to be the most potent form of “magic” just because it imitates God’s own predetermined will to send Jesus to die for our sins.

A second form of occultism forbidden in this passage is divination or the act or practice of trying to foretell the future by unknown or occult means. Knowledge of the future represents power. Wouldn’t we all like to have knowledge of how the stock market will do next year, or what our enemies plan for us? But only God is the “Alpha and Omega; the first and the last, the beginning and the end” and therefore only He can know the future. For men to seek such knowledge apart from God is to attempt to manipulate that which is God’s own domain. It is to claim for one’s self the nature of God; His omniscience.

Granted, in the Bible, God did often send prophets to His people who would, on occasion and according to His will, give knowledge of future events. There was even a procedure during the tabernacle and temple years wherein one could consult the High Priests through the Ummin and Thummin to receive instruction and guidance. But the main purpose of a prophet, throughout the Bible was to declare God’s will, not to give power to people.

Sorcery, wizardry and witchcraft are the claim of the ability to use supernatural power to influence the natural world (NT pharmacopeia; the use of potions/drugs-). Again it is blasphemous because it represents a rival religion to Biblical Christianity. The sorcerer claims to be “connected” to the ultimate source of power which he can manipulate at will. He attributes to himself that which only God can do. Hence, it is always idolatrous and always contrary to revealed religion.

Mediums/spiritualists are those who consult the dead or through whom the dead communicate to the living. Death is the great curse and all men, at the center of their being fear it. Therefore those who can supposedly communicate with the dead achieve power over the living by allaying their fears about the “after-life.” As noted before, Saul’s consultation with a medium was his final act of rebellion that cost him his life. There is even a popular television show that has made its way from basic cable to broadcast TV called “Crossing Over” wherein a medium gives “messages” to a gullible audience.

Necromancy is the acquisition or use of occult powers through contact with demons, spirits and the dead. The idea that spirit is intrinsically superior to matter is not just the product of Plato and ancient Greek. Since God’s divine power and nature is clearly seen through every aspect of creation (Romans 1:18ff), men have always understood that there exists a spiritual realm and sought a connection with it. God is Spirit, and therefore, the assumption goes, the spiritual realm is more powerful than the physical realm. If one can obtain a little power there, it could mean great power here.

Demons are well known in all ancient religions; clearly men “experimenting” in this area discovered that intelligence existed in the spiritual world and sought ways to control it. In the same way, the dead, who now reside in that spiritual universe, were assumed to have access to knowledge and power unavailable on “this side” of the life and death barrier. Necromancy was the attempt to utilize that spiritual knowledge and power.

Astrology/stargazing is the art of gaining knowledge and or power through the positions, influences etc. of the stars, planets etc. In the ancient world, the stars were seen as more than physical objects in the night sky; it was widely assumed that they represented angelic or demonic beings; it was not an accident that all the planets in our solar system were named after particular Greek gods. By studying the movement and position of the night sky, men believed they could foretell future events.

Again, astrology is a blasphemous perversion of a Biblical truth. God specifically says that one of the reasons why He created the stars was to serve as “signs” and “seasons.” The “seasons” aspect we can understand well enough as fundamental to creating a reliable calendar. If one cannot precisely mark off the seasons, especially in an agrarian society (which represents 99% of human history) one cannot know the proper times for planting or harvesting; but what about the “signs” aspect? Well, there is ONE astrological sign that every Christian knows about; the star of Bethlehem. The “Wise men” from the east KNEW that the Messiah had been born because they “saw his star” in the heavens. But where was it revealed in the Old Testament that the Messiah’s birth would be foretold by a “star?”

I would argue that God’s providence governs every aspect of His creation, including celestial mechanics. We may “know” today that stars are burning balls of gas (actually, thermonuclear explosions) but perhaps they also serve another purpose? Psalm 19:1 says that the “heavens declare the glory of God” and surely this means more than we get a funny feeling in our tummies when we look at the night sky? It may well be that God DOES reveal things about Himself through the providential movement of stellar geometry, and “stars” may be more than just physical objects.

However, while the above is an interesting speculation; whatever signs God has placed in the heavens has no direct relationship to the practice of astrology. Astrology is blasphemous just because it attributes the predestination of God to some other entity; the planets and stars (or the spiritual beings believed to be behind them). While the modern astrologer may reject the association with angelic or demonic forces, the underlying presupposition remains that some entity other than God directs the course of human life. Thus to consult the stars through astrology was another form of worship and service to these false gods.

Finally, God finds occultism detestable because the content is often revolting; sexuality/sensuality, disgusting practices; grave robbing, use of body parts/fluids/excrement, human sacrifice are all part and parcel of the “magical” world. The very things God calls “unclean” in the Old Testament ceremonial laws are the essential ingredients in sorcery and witchcraft.

Occultism’s Worldview

The basic presupposition of occultism is the myth of primeval chaos and ethical neutrality. Like modern evolutionary theory, occultism believes that order arose out of chaos. Man’s will becomes the ultimate standard as he imposes order over the cosmic forces. The “supernatural” thus consists of potential energy that is available to those who understand how to use it for their own ends. In the ancient world these forces were sometimes associated with various pagan gods, demons, spirits or even just “forces” that if properly manipulated could grant the user power.

Since the ultimate nature of creation was chaos, there was no definite standard of good or evil, apart from the will of the individual who had the most power. Kings in the ancient world were seen as semi-divine connections between this world and the next. Sorcerers and Necromancers often worked FOR the King. But the worst sort of atrocities were common to both since there existed no ultimate moral standard other than the will of the most powerful

Occultism of course is not just an ancient, pagan belief. In modern society these same “forces” have been secularized by giving them a “scientific” covering: for example, the brain supposedly only uses 1/10th of the available material- could the other 90% be used in ways that are now long forgotten? Or perhaps “ESP” is an evolutionary atrophied ability lost because of man’s increasing dependence on the left hemisphere of his brain which stresses reason and logic? Poltergeists (a German word meaning “noisy ghosts” referring to mischievous or even dangerous hauntings) could in reality be the electromagnetic disturbances caused by anxiety and trauma of puberty and adolescence. The “Force” is a universal energy field created by all living creatures which the properly instructed can manipulate at will.

The point here of course is that though the explanation given is different, and more acceptable to the modern mind, ancient occultism and new age thinking, paranormal “science” etc., is really describing the same phenomenon.

Both ancient and contemporary manifestations of the “supernatural” exalt man at God’s expense; we simply replace the old gods for new ones. Romans 1:23 demonstrates that idolatry comes in many forms; men may worship animals, spirits or Man himself.

Thus occultism is ultimately deceptive because we do not live in a morally neutral universe, but rather an ethical one; i.e. if your “power” does not come from God then it must come from the adversary. But the power that God gives men is obtained by ethics, not ritual, and is to be exercised for His glory through dedicated loving service to others (Mark 10:45). Occultism however offers the temptation of power apart from God that Man can obtain on his own terms.

Why the Resurgence of the Occult?

Occultism is most closely associated with paganism and as the gospel conquered Europe, occultism was suppressed. In many places, only the most rural areas retained some of the older rituals; and even these were Christianized. The Renaissance saw however an outbreak of occultism that is seldom mentioned in most history text-books; the Italians rediscovered more than just Greek sculpture and philosophy but some of their darker secrets as well.

Alchemy was a serious attempt at discovering the “basic” nature of creation and manipulating it. The goal was not as popular imagination would have it to turn lead into gold, but to discover the “elixir vitae” that would grant immortality and spiritual power. Certainly there were attempts at matter transmutation, but how much of this was sincere, or how much was a way of getting financing from Kings and Princes is unclear. One of the most enduring characteristics of occultism is its close association with con artistry. Even the most primitive shaman dancing naked around a camp fire knows that MOST of his REAL power comes from the belief of others rather than in anything he can actually do. In fact, an argument could be made that shamans, witchdoctors, alchemists, sorcerers and necromancers were the first practical psychologists capitalizing on the gullibility of the people. After all, if people THINK you can do something supernatural, it gives you power over them, regardless of whether you actually CAN do anything supernatural.

But with the Reformation and the Enlightenment, rationalism came to rule the day. Reason, logic and clear, critical thinking are the most effective counter-agents to the occult. Reason and logic make things clear and can be shown to anyone who wants to know the truth. Occultism by its very nature defies rational categories and can be learned, only if one is initiated into the secret mysteries of the cult.

Thus, occultism went underground during the Reformation, existing mostly in secret societies that turned to political and cultural issues in the 17-18^th centuries. The theology of ALL revolutionary movements has its origin in occult thinking. In order for societies to be transformed, men must descend back into the primeval chaos that is the ultimate nature of reality. Then SOME men can enforce their will on that chaos and bring about a new political, economic or social order. As demonstrated in the book, “Fire in the Hearts of Men” all of the social revolutionaries of the 19^th century can trace their ancestry directly back to earlier occult societies.

But in the mainstream, at least in the West, occultism dwindled into fairy tale and folk-lore. Christianity and rationalism ruled the day and even in the secularizing process of the 19^th century when Materialists won many of the philosophical battles, occultism was seen as the last remnants of a primitive worldview.

But in the last half of the 20^th century, occultism returned with a vengeance. Partially, thanks to the bankruptcy of modern philosophy, many people lost the very idea of objective truth. If there is no one, all encompassing truth, then there is no place for rationalism. Reason is a useful tool, but if people begin with the basic presupposition that the ultimate nature of reality is chaos (i.e., there is NO truth), then the door has been opened for occultism to make its reappearance. Furthermore, Materialism is inherently an unsatisfying philosophy because it denies something that is inherent within every human being; the knowledge that God, and the spiritual world, exists.

Rational thought, a product of a consistent, Christian worldview, allows us to have dominion over the world by ensuring that we THINK is real, is “really” real. By thinking logically and critically, we can evaluate various claims, and therefore determine truth from error. But if there is no truth, just the subjective impression of the individual, then the chaos is king. As a result, people can believe anything, because anything COULD be true. As mentioned before, one of the marks of people involved in occultism is gullibility; as demonstrated in another article (The “Reality” of Occult Phenomenon); there is actually little real evidence to support claims of occult activity. Even Gary North in his book, “Unholy Spirits” gives undue credence to CLAIMS of occult activity that do not stand the tests of empirical research. Dr. North insists that this is due to occult phenomenon not fitting within the worldviews of modern academics; and to a degree he is most certainly correct.

There are no brute facts, only interpreted ones and one’s presuppositions will determine whether something is even considered a “fact” in the first place. Academics who are materialists at heart are not above discounting the evidence of their own eyes as not being “evidence” just because it does not fit within their frame of reference. And yet, this charge can be turned directly back at Christians. Christians who ASSUME the existence of the supernatural can often believe a certain event has a supernatural origin when in reality it is just good old slight of hand.

The answer to both problems is to think rationally and critically, like the Bereans did before believing every claim that comes to our attention. The Bereans began with the right presuppositions, the authority of Scripture, and then reasoned FROM those Scriptures to evaluate the claims the Apostles were making about Christ. This same process is necessary for all areas of life; begin with the proper presuppositions and then think clearly and logically from those presuppositions.

However, reason, logic and critical thinking are not emphasized in the modern educational system; not by Humanists, and sadly, not often by Christians. The average Christian either accepts things by appeal to an authority (pastor, teacher, popular writer or television personality) or adopts a subjective standard of truth based on whatever the “Spirit” speaks in his “heart.”

The secular world also has adopted a largely subjective standard of truth. There are many supposed “truths” out there and the only unforgivable sin is to hold one truth above another. Both errors in rationality inevitably lead to allowing occultism to flourish.

Of course, the universe is the way God made it and therefore either you live in harmony with that reality, or you suffer. Scientists, engineers and technicians have in the past provided a bulwark against mysticism and occultism because their basic presupposition was that through the scientific method, the universe would be required to give up all its secrets. The 19^th century saw the transition from a religious worldview to a secular/materialist worldview partially because of the power that the scientific method gave to modern man. Science discovered how to make rail-roads, cure diseases, mine ores, build better weapons, conquered the skies and even led us to the moon.

But there was a dark side to science. In the 20^th century, the optimistic hopes of the 19^th century were crushed by two world wars and the invention of nuclear weapons that could potentially end life as we know it on earth. Furthermore, there were limits to what even scientific enquiry could take us. The discoveries about the basic nature of the universe at the sub-atomic level destroyed the earlier Newtonian view of physics. In some way, the very act of observing sub-atomic particles determined how they would respond.

As a result of the increasing mystery of modern physics, the older materialist’s consensus was destroyed. Einstein never discovered his unified field theory which would tie all of physics together. While Science Fiction has gone from embarrassingly bad speculation unknown outside of a small audience to capturing the popular imagination, the reality is that physics has been in despair for almost a century. The world does not seem to fit into any of the comfortable categories established by the 19^th century materialists. And as a result, the possibility of occultism has to be entertained. All societies have some sort of religious beliefs about the nature of the universe and in the West, that mythology for 150 years has been scientific materialism. Therefore, for any idea to become acceptable, it MUST fit within the dominant scientific worldview. Therefore, occultism was transferred from the magician’s study to the scientific laboratory and renamed “Paranormal Research.” For years, such activity has been seen as on the fringes of scientific enquiry, but the very fact that universities take it seriously enough that they offer courses and degrees in these areas, has therefore authenticated occultism in the popular mind. The average person today who has read anything of the actual literature would come away with the clear conception that science has “proven” the existence of ESP, poltergeists, and other occult phenomenon. The reality of course is less clear, but the fact that the highest authority in Western culture, the secular university, teaches such things, therefore makes its acceptance almost guaranteed.

Another reason for the recent outbreak of occultism has to with the church adopting 19^th century materialists’ skepticism of the supernatural. Liberal theology was an attempt to adapt the Bible to the prevailing cultural norms, and in those days, that meant getting rid of the supernatural and the miraculous. This left a gaping hole in the human psyche that occultism has been quick to fill. People WANT to believe in something greater and grander than themselves, and as discussed previously, there is an innate hunger for supernatural power to bolster our inner desire to be “as gods.” What mainstream Christianity took away, cults, sects and occultism gave back; at the price of reason and rationality and the dangers of consorting with demons.

Finally, occultism found a ripe harvest because of the chaos and complexity of modern culture. From 1960 onwards, the West has been experiencing a traumatic social revolution. Sexuality, abortion, the break-down of the traditional family, the failure of modern religion, etc., all have combined to create a social situation that leaves the average person feeling confused and estranged. Occultism in its various forms promises to bring meaning to these people, to put them in touch with the ultimate nature of reality while not requiring them to abandon their most basic presupposition that the world must revolve around them. It is no accident that the fastest growing Christian churches in the world are those that PROMISE miracles to their people on a regular basis.

For the Christian, the supernatural really exists. We believe in a sovereign God who according to His own providence can and does interact with His creation. We believe that prayer really can change things. We believe in the existence of spiritual beings at war with our heavenly Father and at enmity with us. Thus, we are predisposed to seeing “supernatural” explanations of various events. When we hear people of good repute and respectable character giving reports of demons exorcized, bodies healed, or even the dead being raised, we do not immediately dismiss such accounts because they COULD be true.

Dealing with the Occult

In light of what we have discussed, what ought to be the Christian response to occultism? It is pervasive in our culture; rather boring, traditional English school stories infused with a little magic has made J. K. Rowling fantastically rich. The most successful movies and films of the past twenty-five years all have strong occult themes. The Christian cannot escape the occultism of modern society unless they withdraw completely FROM that society. So what do we do?

First, there is a lot of fear amongst many Christians regarding anything even remotely associated with the occult; unreasonable fear. Attacks have been made against J.R.R. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis’s fiction because there is “magic” in their books. The “Dark Side” of Harry Potter has been popularized by many different writers all motivated by a legitimate concern that exposure to this kind of material MIGHT lead to future involvement in the occult.

But there is “magic” and there is MAGIC and we have to distinguish between the two. In Christian works, the “magic” must be understood in context of the times. Remember, these books were written before the modern resurgence of occultism when Materialism seemed destined to extinguish popular belief in ALL supernatural phenomena, including Biblical Christianity. Lewis and Tolkien’s use of good “magic” for example is always CLEARY distinguishable from the evil sorts that come from demonic associations. In Lewis especially, he uses “magic” in the sense of “miracle.”

In Tolkien’s “Lord of the Rings” the “wizard” Gandalf is in reality an angel sent to earth to help men battle against the evil demon, Sauron. He is severely restricted in using “magic” and his purpose is more to motivate men than it is to directly battle evil. Yes, there are “magical” rings, swords, and devices, but even here, Necromancy and Sorcery are clearly seen as evil and satanic. The “magical” devices are basically technology that is not understood by the average person. And that phenomenon is just as true of the average person today as it is in Tolkien’s world. How many people actually understand how their television works, or could explain the physics of an internal combustion engine? But we do not call such things “magic” but invoke the more acceptable term “technology.”

If there is an actual difference between “magic” and “technology” it is the application of the scientific method. Technology by definition is something that COULD be understood if a person was willing to put in the time to study it. Magic on the other hand, by its nature, is hidden from the average person and only the initiate, with the proper mind-set and conditioning can master it.

Secondly, occultism in movies and books, even when it comes from a secular source does not necessarily qualify as one of the detestable things in Deuteronomy. For example, is the comic book hero “Superman” something God had in mind when He outlawed occult activity? Superman is an alien being with powers far and above the abilities of the average human. He can fly, is invulnerable, has X-ray vision and has super-strength: does this make him an occult figure?

I would argue no, because there is in Western culture, going back to the beginnings of Christianity in Europe, myths, legends and folk-tales where people have extraordinary powers. But they are just that, stories; they are not real, we are not supposed to believe them, and nobody does. We find such characters interesting and fascinating BECAUSE they can do things that no real human can do, not because somehow we believe we can obtain such powers.

Granted, there have always been some little children who put on their Superman capes and jump off the roofs of their houses trying to fly and yes, there are a few adults with brain dysfunction who religiously attend Star Trek conventions anxiously hoping that Scottie will “beam them up.” But we LAUGH at such people just because they cannot separate fantasy from reality.

Does not EVERY little Christian boy find Samson the most interesting character in the Bible? And haven’t most of them, at least a few times, played as Samson pulling down the temple? Is it not the very fact of Samson’s unusual power, through his amazing strength the very reason why we find his story so fascinating?

Movies, television shows and books I think fall into this same category. Just because the hero may have some unusual powers does not necessarily mean that the show is outright demonic in its orientation and therefore ought to be avoided. What is of far more importance is the values and morality being portrayed. Is it not interesting that many Christians “horrified” by the thought of watching certain movies that may have some form of supernaturalism will relish romantic trash that glorifies adultery, fornication, rebellious children, etc? So which kind of film is more likely to cause serious harm to one’s soul?

Granted, there ARE such films and books that by their nature are simply evil; they glorify the occult, and romanticize evil. The most dangerous are probably the “Slasher” movies. In this genre, begun by the infamous cult film “Texas Chainsaw Massacre” and made popular by “Halloween” demonically controlled human beings gruesomely murder stupid teenagers who insist on going into dark places alone. Werewolves, Vampires and Frankenstein’s monster are creatures of fiction; we know they do not exist. But homicidal, sociopaths dismembering innocent people are all too real.

As seriously as we ought to take God’s warning against occultism in any form, we need to make a distinction between the actual practice of such blasphemies and its mere occurrence in literature or films. Just because something has “magic” in it does not necessarily make it unlawful.

Bram Stoker’s famous novel “Dracula” is inherently a Christian book because it clearly identifies the main character with Satan, and he is to be opposed by Christianity. Similarly, Mary Shelly’s “Frankenstein” (though written by a 19 year old girl involved in an adulterous relationship with Percy Shelly), addresses a fundamental question about the relationship between science and religion; man might be able to create life, but only God can create a soul. In the BEST examples of this kind of literature, the “occult” aspects may be present, but they are addressed from a Biblical perspective, even if the writer or producer himself is NOT a Christian. They cannot help but do so because God is the ultimate source of all truth and beauty. For a film or novel to work, it must relate back to God in some way, even if it is thoroughly unintentional on the part of the author or film-makers.

The Francis Ford Coppola film version of Dracula is a wicked movie; Dracula is portrayed as a sympathetic creature, appealing and seductive. He is turned into a vampire after his wife commits suicide and he rebels against God. There are gross scenes of sexuality that serve no other purpose but to titillate the audience (and personally speaking, the reason why I usually only watch such films on our VCR or DVD, the fast forward button is a necessity). But even in this, the director to resolve his story HAD to return to Christian themes of redemption. Thus even in a most perverse and wicked film, God’s image bears through.

Furthermore, fiction CAN be a legitimate means of discussing profound theological and philosophical issues without tempting anyone to dabble in occultism. Popular films, especially ones with occult themes, can open the door to sharing the gospel that would otherwise remain firmly closed. People are hesitant about sharing their personal beliefs about God, but will often willingly engage in long conversations about films and books.

Though a tangent, perhaps this is the time to discuss the role of all forms of “entertainment.” Christians need to be able to analyze what they see on TV and films or read in books. Every author or producer has a worldview they want to present. The “entertainment” is just a means of packaging that worldview to make it easier for the audience to understand. When we watch something, or read something, we will find it “entertaining” if it meets certain, objective criteria; are there characters with whom we can identify and sympathize, are there conflicts that concern us that are resolved in a satisfactory way? Is the film well made, or book well written?

However, the crucial aspect is ALWAYS the worldview of the writer, director, producer, etc. Furthermore, since making movies is about making money, there is a limit as to how far the author or producer can push that agenda before losing their audience. And just because “in Him we live and move and have our being” even wicked men, cannot help but image the God who created them.

Either Christians just step out of the whole arena of movies and fiction, thus cutting us off from where the average person thinks and feels, or we have to learn how to deal with these worldviews that are in conflict with ours. We have to do more than just sit passively absorbing “entertainment” but instead learn how to analyze the worldview and critique it.

Furthermore, we need to learn how to show that Hollywood’s worldview is either arbitrary or inconsistent; the fatal flaws in all non-Christian worldviews. Apologetics is the full time responsibility of every Christian as he interacts with friends, neighbors and co-workers. Our goal is to take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ (2 Cor 10:4-5) and present the truth claims of King Jesus.

Discussing popular films, especially science fiction and those with some sort of occult theme, has thus been one of the most effective evangelistic tools I have ever found because people LIKE to talk about their favorite movies. They may not have read much philosophy or thought through their own worldview, but they have watched countless hours of movies and television. By learning how to discover the worldview of a film, and then exposing its errors, we CAN then break the ground for evangelism.

For example, several years ago an extraordinarily well made film, “The Sixth Sense” dealt with a little boy who saw dead people. He was not a medium or spiritualist and his “sight” was a terrifying experience he wanted to be rid of. This was a “haunting” film as a psychologist deals with his own estranged wife while trying to help the little boy through his horror filled days. It had a shock ending, that caught most viewers unaware, and for a while, everyone was talking about the movie. Now, not for a moment does the Christian have to give any credence to the worldview in this movie. Yes, it does have occult themes dealing as it does with a boy who sees and talks to dead people. And we know that the dead are not wandering around seeking to resolve personal problems before they move “into the light.” However, it does RAISE the issue of life after death and from the perspective of the viewer, the even more important issue of the responsibilities of life BEFORE death. We can use this movie and others to introduce the TRUTH; and we can legitimately appreciate a brilliant piece of film-making at the same time.

However, Christians seem to have fallen into the secular trap of seeing movies and TV as merely “entertainment.” Too often, they are passive recipients satisfied with watching the pretty pictures flashing across the scene, not thinking about what they are watching and why they find it interesting and “entertaining.” Granted, one can appreciate the Indiana Jones movies, even while discarding the gross misunderstanding of the nature of God that is prevalent; after all, its fun to hate Nazis! But we must not settle for this superficial level even if we can appreciate it. The issues are always deeper and ALWAYS must relate back to God.

Whether Hollywood or Stephen King know it or not, they can create meaningful, entertainment only if they assume certain things that their own worldview cannot sustain. God is the creator of all things, and His character and nature are revealed in all things. The eternal themes that make great literature or films are that which touches on the nature of God and Man.

However, many people have expressed the concern that entertainment could be the means of actually introducing people into occult activity. And yes, as mentioned previously, there are those who cannot distinguish between fantasy and reality and therefore they ought to refrain from such areas; just as there are people who cannot handle drinking alcohol without getting drunk and should probably refrain from drinking, or those who cannot stop themselves from eating an entire pie ought to keep sweet stuff out of the house.

The real danger of occultism is not its mere presence in a book or film, but in a person’s view of God, and in their daily practice. Ask the average Christian their astrological sign and probably 99% know it. Perhaps not as many, but an overwhelming majority read their horoscope on a daily basis. Many Christians have had their fortunes told, or played with Ouija boards or even participated in a séances. The danger from the media is that unthinking Christians can become desensitized to the occult and accept it as normal, and eventually leading some to participate in it, thus bringing them under God’s wrath.

The average pagan however sees occultism in films and literature as an experience, not unlike the thrill of a roller coaster. If done technically well, then a “scary” movie or book makes them FEEL something-but since they do not really believe in the occult, just as they do not really think the roller coaster is going to kill them, it is a “safe” feeling.

Christians on the other hand realize that the world that occultism describes (often erroneously) is in fact real; and some times they become terribly frightened. Unlike the pagan who is just looking for a thrill, the Christian knows that there are such things as demons and rightly do not want to become involved with them.

Granted, there are certain popular role playing games that actually REQUIRE the player to indulge in sorcery and necromancy; and here the Christian parent has a right to be concerned. If God says something is “detestable” then we can rightly question whether allowing our children to role play disgusting things is lawful.

However, it appears that often, the real problem is fear; many Christians fear that they might inadvertently invite demonic activity in their homes by simply watching certain movies, reading certain books or even if they play a particular computer game.

The Christian of course ought never to give into fear because “greater is He who is in you, then he who is in the world.” The Adversary certainly has power, even power which he MIGHT occasionally share with some deluded humans; but if we walk in faith before God, repenting of our sins and trusting in Him, there is little that the enemy can do to us. Remember, the New Testament, though documenting the reality of demonic possession, places far more emphasis on the demon’s ability to DECEIVE the elect, than it does on Christians being attacked by them! To the contrary, when the gospel is preached and believed, the demons tremble and flee. We ought to have the same attitude towards the occult as the Bible itself does; recognize its reality, understand its dangers and then, just ignore it. Christians ought never to be concerned about haunted houses or spooks or curses; they need to be concerned about selfishness, arrogance, pride and willful sin. Demons cannot harm you, but a stubborn, rebellious heart CAN bring God’s judgment and that is the ONLY thing we should fear.