Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Hafley

QUESTION:

From Missouri: “Is it scriptural to celebrate Christmas in any way? Do you think giving of gifts, sending cards, and a Christmas tree are contrary to scriptural authority? Would the above fall under the discussion of Romans 14? Would the observing of any of the customs above be forbidden by Galatians 4:10,11?”

REPLY:

Our inquirer readily recognizes that the birth of Christ is not to be especially honored on December 25, the day called “Christmas.” Although there is controversy among Christians relative to the queries presented, there is no saint known to me who sanctifies December 25 as the date of Christ’s birth. We shall dispense and dispose with that aspect since it is not germane to the issues we entertain in these questions.

Warnings Against Worldly Abuses

Christmas is more than a day. It is a season. It possesses a spirit, and not all of it is good. Frankly, much of it is evil. ” ‘Tis the season to be dolly,” the song says, but ’tis also the season for folly, for licentious, lascivious behavior. Drunkenness, revelings, banquetings, and excesses of all forms abound. Christians who will not join the drinking and unchaste words arid ways of an “office party,” will frequently indulge in gluttony which they label as “indigestion” or scale down to the relative propriety of “over eating.” “And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them …. See then that ye walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise, redeeming the time because the days are evil. Wherefore be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is. And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit” (Eph. 5:11, 15-18).

The First Three Questions

The first two questions essentially constitute one question. One may, as a citizen, celebrate many holidays. Yes, “holiday” comes from “holy day,” but that is not its general use. (Does “Holiday Inn” indicate “Holy Day Inn?”)

The giving of gifts is optional. One could make a sin of it by extravagant, debt-causing spending and giving. Again, Christians often are guilty in this regard. Their giving to the Lord shrinks while they play Santa Claus. Their abuses, though, do not negate the right for me to give gifts to friends and relatives. I do not give presents to honor the birth of Christ. The purpose of the gift determines its scripturalness. If I give a gift because gifts were given to Christ at his birth (Matt. 2:11), and if I say I am doing this in honor of Christ who was born “on Christmas Day,” I would be doing wrong (Matt. 28:20; Gal. 1:8, 9). But if I decide to give toys boys at a set time every year, that is my privilege.

Personally, we do not send cards during the Christmas holidays. Certain ones are not objectionable, but one must use judgment and discretion lest he grant spiritual credence to Christmas by the cards he sends. Some Christmas cards are so religiously oriented and tainted with the myths of Catholicism and Protestantism that my family could not and would not send them, even if we had such a practice. Such cards identify one with the false teachings and religious traditions of men (Eph. 5:11).

A Christmas tree does not necessarily reflect that one believes December 25th is Jesus’ birthday. A “manger scene” does perhaps, but having a Christmas tree, sending cards and giving gifts does not necessarily honor Christmas as a religious holy day. Atheists and infidels have trees in their homes, send cards and give gifts. Does any one assume from this that they have suddenly “got religion?” No, why? Because Christmas is not totally regarded as a religious day. If one takes the position that he cannot celebrate Christmas as a civil holiday, how can he agree to take the day off work? Is he honoring the birth of Jesus by not working on December 25th?

Some do not choose to give gifts, send cards, or have a tree in their home during Christmas holidays. That is their prerogative. Certain principles from Romans 14 are applicable. “Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind” (Rom. 14:5). One must not condemn his brother, or his conscience. He must not cause his brother to stumble, to offend, to be made weak by his actions.

Some Oft Heard Objections

(1) “One cannot separate the civil from the religious atmosphere at Christmas.” I think I can and do. Unbelievers, on the other side of the spiritual spectrum, do also. They observe the day and its customs without religious significance, and I can do likewise. Again, if one cannot separate the civil from the religious, he is “religiously” observing the birth of Christ if he takes the day off work.

(2) “The world looks upon your tree, cards, and gifts as being emblematic of your belief in Christmas as the Lord’s birth.” Not all do, and those who do so make a false and unwarranted assumption. We have turkey and dressing every Thanksgiving. Someone may imagine from this that I believe Thanksgiving is a religious holy day. I cannot prevent all misconceptions of this nature. Remember the infidel. His neighbors know he has no faith in Christ, and a tree, cards, and gifts do not tell them he does have. The neighbors of a Christian know where he stands with regard to December 25th, and a tree, cards, and gifts do not destroy his teaching.

(3) “The very word `Christmas’ involves one in honor of pagan, heathen and Catholic superstitions.” Tuesday is the day of Tyr, Norse god of war. Wednesday comes from Woden, a Norse god. Thursday is the day of Thor, Norse god of war and brother of Tyr (Tuesday). Friday is the day of Freya, Norse goddess of marriage. Saturday is a derivative of Saturn. Should one cease to mention the names of the days of the week because of their origin? The same could be said for January, March, May, and June, for they are named after Roman gods and goddesses. Do these very words include one in honor of pagan gods?

Galatians 4:10, 11 Applicable?

“Ye observe days, months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labor in vain” (Gal. 4:10, 11). These texts, in principle, would be to the point if one revered Christmas as the birth of Christ. Paul is dealing with Judaizers who bind Jewish holy days as essential to faithfulness (Gal. 4:9). Gentiles, too, were being turned to the “bondage” of the law and to Jewish fables and festivals (Gal. 4:21). One could “observe” no day, month, time, or year and make it mandatory to holiness and acceptance before God. To do so would be to step beyond the bounds of Divine authority, to Christmas as walk without God. That is as true of it is of Easter and the Sabbath.

However, to say it applies to all observances of all days is to misapply the passage. Such a view would preclude and prohibit the notice of Memorial Day, Armistice Day, Groundhog Day, Thanksgiving, Lincoln’s birth, ad infinitum. One could not even acknowledge his own birthday if that view were taken! A parallel may simplify and clarify. Jesus said, “Call no man your father upon the earth” (Matt. 23:9). There is no religious or spiritual sense in which I may call a man “father.” From another standpoint, though, I can call a man “father” (Heb. 12:9; Matt. 10:37), even though Jesus said “Call no man your father.” Surely, all understand this.

Galatians 4:10, 11, is relevant if I seek to bind any unauthorized day as an essential to fidelity unto the Lord, but it is not pertinent concerning civil or social days.

Truth Magazine XIX: 55, pp. 866-867
December 4, 1975

By Larry Ray Hafley

There is an extremely useful and profitable book in my library by F. W. Farrar entitled Texts Explained. It was purchased from a Methodist College Library after it had been “discarded.” The book was printed in 1899. It is yellow and musty with age. This informative and valuable book has approximately 15 per cent of its 372 pages still stuck together. Evidently when the book was published, the pages were not properly trimmed, thus, as I peruse the book, it is necessary for me to perform a little surgical separation. Now, imagine what that means. Here is a book that is more than three quarters of a century old, yet it has been ignored and neglected. Why else would many of the pages still be uncut? I cannot conceive of such a good book receiving such a good letting alone. If the book was of no use, I would not bother to trim the edges, but it is an excellent book to study.

How many of us allow good Bible study helps to remain closed? The pages may as well be sealed so far as we are concerned. Better (or should I say worse?) still, would it make much difference if the pages on your copy of the Bible were uncut? Would it bother you, would it be a hindrance if perhaps 15 per cent of the pages of your personal Bible were like the book I described? Texts Explained has been abandoned for years, at least, the copy I have has been, and that is a shame. If your Bible has been neglected, that is a sin.

Truth Magazine XIX: 54, p. 861
November 27, 1975

By Roy E. Cogdill

Many of the brethren are contending today that it is scriptural and right for the churches of Christ to build and maintain benevolent “organizations” to do the work of caring for the needy that God has charged the church to do. This proposition has been debated numerous times between brethren all over the country though its proponents have evidently decided that it is unscriptural to debate or that it is unwise, for they seem no longer willing to mount the polemic rostrum and try to defend their “benevolent societies.” They have tried numerous methods of defending them and none has seemed to work.

Unscriptural Arguments for the Benevolent Societies

They have asserted that such organizations as they have formed, viz., Ontario Children’s Home; Boles Home, Inc., Tipton Home; Tennessee Orphan’s Home; Southern Christian Home; Sunny Glen Home; etc., are necessary because the civil law requires such organization in order that the church may care for its needy. This has been proven untrue and they have had to desert it. It is obvious to anyone with any conception of truth and right, that the requirement of it by the law would not make it scriptural, but it was resorted to when they had no Bible passage with which to defend their position. No federal or state law in this country requires the church to form a human organization for any reason. It would be unconstitutional if it did and it would still be unscriptural even if it were constitutional.

Then they tried the contention that such benevolent organizations were merely for the purpose of giving legal protection to those who directed its affairs and had the oversight of its work in case they were sued or prosecuted by someone. When it was shown that such corporate organizations were not merely for the purpose of holding title to property but were formed and actually functioning as the controlling and directing agency in the work being done and that the directors were empowered by their very charter, which gave the organization existence, to control and direct its work and, hence, it was entirely removed from any supervision or control by any church, they had to surrender this contention.

They argued that it was “kingdom business”-the actual work of the church being done by the church, and that the organization was only a method employed by the church by which to do its work, such as the Bible classes on the Lord’s Day. It was shown in answer to this that an organization is not a method but that an organization employs or uses methods. It was further pointed out that if the church can charter a human institution to do its work of benevolence scripturally, and such an organization was merely the work of the church in the field of benevolence, like the Bible classes are the work of the church in the field of teaching, then the Bible classes could be incorporated under a Board of Directors just like the benevolent organization and that such a board could be scripturally authorized to carry on and direct the work of teaching. This obviously got them in trouble with the brethren who charge that the Bible classes are a separate organization from the church and delivered these institutional brethren into their hands so they had to abandon that contention.

Are Such Societies “Homes?”

In the evolution of their attempts to defend these human benevolent societies they eventually got around to the argument that such institutions are actually and only “homes” and that the “home” is a divine organization, separate from the church, and that its function cannot be a part of the work of the church and therefore elders cannot oversee such an institution or work. Therefore, it must be under a Board of Directors. They further argued that such Board of Directors were actually the parents, in fact, of the children cared for. But they have found this position just as indefensible as all of the others. In answer to this sophistry it has been clearly established that such an institution or organization is not a “home” in any Bible sense even though they may be known by such names.

The English word “home” comes from different words in the original language of the Bible but in all of their usages there are only four senses: a. a place of residence; b. figuratively the family living in such a place of residence; c. the family plus the household servants living in such a place of residence; and d. the estate of such a family.

It should be easily discerned that any kind of a “benevolent organization” is not a “home” in any of these senses. The organization is not a “place of residence.” The charters of every one of these institutions state that such organization is formed in order to “provide a home” or place of residence for orphan or destitute children. Surely in no sense is the organization or Board of Directors a “place” of any kind.

Furthermore, such an organization is in no sense a “family.” God, who ordained marriage and the family relationship, gave it form just like He did the church. That is, the husband and wife relationship, out of which grows the parent’ and child relationship. This “benevolent organization” does not even generally resemble such a relationship. Who ever heard of a family with a “Board of Directors” organized into the form of “President, Vice President, Secretary-Treasurer,” etc.?

When it was argued that under the law, the Board of Directors of such an organization are “en loco parentis” and that such constituted a parent and child relationship, it was pointed out that such is purely a fictitious relationship. This board does not live with the children. They do not even live in close proximity to them. They have no common place of residence. More than that, the board only infrequently visits the children. They do not themselves provide for the children of whom they are supposedly the “parents.” They beg others to provide for them. They do not teach, train, nor care for the children, but hire others to do so. They do not perform the function of “parents” in any sense actually, but are the “legal guardians” of these children and that is all. More than all that, by the very expression “en loco parentis” is meant not “parents” but “in the stead or place of parents.” Many, in fact, most of these children have living parents, who either have deserted them, refused to care for them, or in some other way have failed in their duty.

Conclusion

Such organizations are not churches of Christ in any sense. Neither are they “homes” in any sense. What are they? They are humanly designed, state authorized, statute controlled, benevolent societies run by a Board of Directors. They have the same status with reference to the work God has given the church to do as the missionary society. If churches can build and maintain such benevolent organizations, there is no rule or reason that would make it wrong for’ them to build such organizations to do their work of evangelism. The missionary society is just as scriptural, and for the same reasons that make the benevolent society scriptural. It is a package deal-swallow one and you cannot “gag” at the other!

Truth Magazine XIX: 54, pp. 860-861
November 27, 1975

By By Hugh J. Mooney

In cigarette country, television commercials show two or three handsome, rugged cowboys on beautiful horses. Or there are sports cars, planes or scuba gear. The scene is always one of clean, windswept health. The people have a look of supreme confidence; the lovely girls all smile.

I know another country. It is a land from which few return. In this sad region there are no strong men, no smiling, pretty girls. Executives and store clerks there look very much alike, not only because they wear the same clothes, but because people living on the raw edge of a thin hope somehow get the same haunted expression on their faces.

I am referring to cancer country. I have been there.

I am 44 years old, and have a wife and two small children. By 1963, I had a comfortable salary with an insurance firm, and the future seemed bright. In May of that year, I developed a slight difficulty in swallowing. Our family physician said that if it persisted for another week, he would arrange an appointment for me with a throat specialist. It did persist. The specialist diagnosed it simply as “a case of nerves”-a diagnosis that he was to reaffirm in October. Finally, in January 1964, convinced that it was more than a case of nerves, I entered a hospital. And there the doctor told me, as gently as he could, that I had cancer of the throat.

The first thing that occurred to me was that I would die and Eileen, my wife, would have to give up the house. What a shame that my children would not be able to grow up in that house! We had bought it only two years before.

The doctor suggested that I enter a well-known Eastern hospital. Two days later, Eileen and I drove there. I was assigned to a four-bed room on the seventh floor of the east wing. This is known as Seven-East.

When I saw the three other patients in my room, I didn’t want to believe my eyes. It was suppertime, and the patients were eating. It wasn’t much like the television campfire scene. These men stood by their beds and carefully poured a thin pink liquid into small glass tubes. Then they held the tubes high over their heads. The fluid drained down out of the tubes through a thin, clear plastic hose which disappeared into one nostril.

They had to eat this way because throat, mouth, tongue and esophagus had been cut away in surgery. I could actually see the back wall of their gullets-the entire front of the throat was laid open from just below the jaw down almost to the breastbone. Each of them had a large wad of absorbent bandage under his chin to catch the constant flow of saliva pouring out of his throat.

The sight of these “tube feeders” shocked and depressed me more than anything since the day I learned 1 had cancer. As soon as I had changed into pajamas and robe, I rushed back to the solarium where Eileen was waiting. Shaking, I lit a cigarette and stared about me at all the other patients, some of whom would be dead in a week or so.

The doctor assigned to my case found us there in the solarium. I made it clear to him that I never wanted to become like those other patients. I said that I would rather die than be cut up that way. He told me not to think about it, that perhaps such drastic surgery would not be necessary in my case.

A heavy snow was falling outside. Eileen had to leave to drive the 60 miles home. I walked with her to the elevator, pretending a lot more optimism than I felt. “Drive carefully,” I said, and kissed her good-by. The first few hours after the elevator doors closed behind her were probably the worse of my life.

I fled to the solarium, unwilling to face the surgical horrors in my room. Yet everywhere I looked there were patients whose tongues, pharynxes, jaws, throats, chins or noses had been removed. Many of them were waiting for plastic surgery to reconstruct their faces and necks.

For this, it is necessary to grow extra pieces of flesh. Through some sort of surgical miracle these pieces of flesh-called pedicles-can be made to grow anywhere on the patient that the surgeon decides is best. One patient had flesh growing out of the side of his neck in a tubular U, like the handle on a suitcase. Another man had one growing from between his shoulder blades over his right shoulder to a spot in his throat just below the chin. It must have been 18 inches long.

I was torn between horror and pity. What might I look like soon? I reminded myself that surgery might not be necessary, and kept my eyes on the walls, the floor-anywhere but on the other patients.

The television set was on, and the cigarette commercials droned along, extolling the wonderful taste of the product. But these people who had smoked all their lives could no longer taste cigarettes-or anything else. Their food was poured through plastic tubing. There are no taste buds in plastic tubing.

All the people in the commercials had wonderfully appealing voices, young and vibrant. But the patients around me in the solarium did not have very nice voices. 1n fact, many had no voices at all; their vocal cords had been cut away.

These voiceless wraiths carried pad and pencil to communicate. Others, whose throat openings had been closed, were able to use an electronic device that looked something like a flashlight. You hold it against your throat, and it picks up vibrations from the section where your vocal cords used to be. It produces a tinny, electronic voice-faint, but understandable.

Next morning, I was taken to the operating room for a bronchoscopic examination. This is very much like sword-swallowing. You tilt your head back as far as you can, and doctors slide a metal tube through your mouth and all the way down into your trachea. Your gag reflexes go crazy trying to eject this tube, and you find that it is completely cutting off your supply of air. All this time two or three doctors are taking turns looking down the pipe.

Occasionally they take a sample for a biopsy — lowering something down the tube that snips off a specimen of flesh here and there. I passed out from lack of air during the examination, and came to back on my bed. 1 was told not to eat or drink anything and to remain in bed for at least two hours.

In an effort to save my voice, so important in insurance work, it was agreed that radiation treatments would be tried. The treatments were not effective, and in August 1964 the doctors told me I would have to undergo surgery.

The night before the operation, knowing that I would never speak again, I tried to tell Eileen how much I loved her and the children. She was very brave. The next morning, on my way to the operating room, I remember praying and repeating the name “Jesus” over and over. It seemed somehow right that this should be my last spoken word.

Eleven hours later, I was brought back to my room. Except for an hour in the recovery room, I had spent all that time on the operating table. Next day, I learned that the surgeons had removed my larynx, my pharynx, part of my esophagus and a few other random bits and pieces. I was now one of those “surgical freaks” whose appearance had so shocked me some months before. From this time on, I would breathe through a hole at the base of my throat called a stoma.

Knowing how odd my open throat made me appear, I felt completely cut off from humanity-a mere biological specimen, It was a difficult and lonely period of adjustment. Eight subsequent operations were required to reconstruct the front of my neck. Television helped pass the time. All of us there in Seven-East were, I confess, morbidly fascinated by the cigarette commercials. After smoking approximately 19,000 packs of cigarettes, I-we all-had turned out a bit different from those handsome fellows and beautiful young women.

Young people today are great believers in realism. It might be interesting, therefore, if some advertising agency were to do a cigarette commercial featuring a patient who had lost his throat to cancer caused by smoking. They could choose a man growing one of those flesh pedicles. Or the camera might slowly pan around the room, showing all of us still faithfully smoking brand X or brand Y-those of us who still had a complete mouth to put a cigarette into. They might even show the one total addict I met who smoked by holding his cigarette to the hole that led into his windpipe, through which he breathed air into his lungs.

We don’t ride horses or helicopters or sports cars in Seven-East. We ride wheeled tables to the operating room, and if we’re lucky we ride them back. Seven-East is only a part of cancer country. They treat lungs on the third floor. I thank God that I have not yet had to visit there.

Truth Magazine XIX: 52, pp. 821-822
November 13, 1975