A Chance to Die*

This could be a tricky post because easily misunderstood in too many ways, but then I do a lot of tricky posts.

I just saw a movie on Netflix, Brothers with Tobey Maguire, Jake Gyllenhaal, Natalie Portman, Sam Shepard, made in 2009. Good cast, good acting, touching story, believable. It's an American remake of a Danish film done a few years earlier. I have that one up next to watch in my Netflix queue. It occurred to me I should wait until I've seen it to write anything, but after reading the reviews I don't think I need to. I gather the main incident in the American version doesn't occur in the Danish version and that incident is what I want to comment on. It's the "explanation" offered by the American version for the mental breakdown of a soldier returned from war, and apparently no explanation was needed in the Danish version to make the story of his breakdown believable. I'm sure that's so. There are plenty of things war can do to people to tear them apart psychologically, making any particular explanation unnecessary. (Tue Mar 1: I did see the Danish version last night and it's exactly the same story, and the same incident IS at the center of it).

This incident got hold of me and I can't stop thinking about it completely apart from the fabric of the film.

Maguire plays an American marine in Afghanistan whose helicopter is shot down and he's reported to his family as dead. But he survives and is taken POW. After enduring months of imprisonment in a cave with another soldier he is made to kill that soldier, a friend. He's told it's either him or the friend, either getting to see his family again or dying. At first he throws down the pipe they've given him to use against his friend, but then they threaten him again with a gun to his head and he ends up using the pipe to beat his friend to death. Eventually he's freed and goes home only to find he can't adjust, has paranoid thoughts about his wife and his brother being together during the months they thought he was dead, is tense, depressed and angry, unable to get back into the old life. This is not an uncommon story for returning soldiers, but in this case the explanation is his guilt for having given in and killed his friend.

Here's why I wanted to write about this: The family are portrayed as Christians, at least they are shown together in church for the funeral of this marine, singing a hymn that is apparently familiar to them.

I can't help thinking what a Christian witness it would have been if the marine had stuck it out to the end as a disciple of Christ, on the Christian principle, Greater love hath no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. This is what Jesus did for His friends, and since the servant is not greater than the master it may be asked of His followers as well. At the very least, of course, Thou shalt not murder is a clear enough directive for a Christian, and to obey it under that kind of duress would also show great faith, but to lay down your life because Jesus did, with that much faith in Him, would be powerful witness to his torturers. THIS is the witness that brought people to Christ when the Christians were under severe persecution in the Roman Empire, the faith that is shown through the willingness to die. Which is all the more powerful a witness if the love of Christ for the torturers shines through.

I have in mind Tertullian's famous line, The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church and the article at this website, Reformation Theology, says it very well:

We have no trouble thinking of persecution and martyrdom as a great obstacle to the spread of the gospel which will not, however, be successful in hindering Church growth. We would have no problem affirming that the blood of the martyrs is a hurdle which, by God’s grace, can be overcome. But to say that the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church is an altogether different concept. If martyrdom is a surmountable obstacle to the growth of the Church, then the Church might advance just as well, even better, without it. But if the blood of the martyrs truly is the seed of the Church, then without it, the Church does not grow. Without martyrdom, the Church would never have taken root in the world of Tertullian. Without martyrdom, the Church would not have spread to the Auca Indians in South America, or to China or Burma or the islands of the South Seas. The blood of the martyrs is a necessary means for the worldwide application of Christ’s great redemptive accomplishment. This is the full force of Tertullian’s insight ...

Without the martyrdom of Stephen, forgiving those who were stoning him to death, while the young Saul of Tarsus looked on, the church of Christ might never have been born, would never have spread as it did in those early days.

And that is the perfection of Christian testimony down the centuries. Josef Tson comes to mind, the Romanian pastor during the reign of Ceaucescu who was able to love his interrogator who beat him, who was able to overcome his distress when the police confiscated his valuable library, to the extent of remembering to be a good host and offer them coffee. Tson also wrote a book about the importance of martyrdom which I have yet to read. It is good to read stories like Tson's (or hear him speak -- a number of his talks are at You Tube or maybe Google video), like Foxe's Book of Martyrs, the story of John Bunyan in prison having to commit his wife and children to the care of God rather than give in to the demands of the authorities which would have set him free, or many of the little books you can find about various missionaries and other Christians around the world. The Russian woman's prayer for God to forgive the young KGB thug who was about to club her over the head was the beginning of his salvation (read about it in the little book The Persecutor).

And remember, the word martyr is a Greek word that means "witness." What we think of as witnessing is a pretty pale reflection of the original meaning in Christian history.

I love those stories, they ring true in a way that makes so much of today's comfortable Christianity ring dull and flat if not outright false. But who am I to talk of this? I grumble over inconveniences in my own life, grumble over my aches and pains, grumble over insensitive neighbors, grumble at insults I get on the internet. I'm not laying down my life for anyone. All I can say for myself is that I catch myself at it and make resolutions to do better, to love my enemies and so on. I can also say for myself that I have this knowledge at least -- I know that this Christian life I fall so short of really IS as demanding as to ask that we lay down our lives, AND I know from experience that when I have done that, on those rare occasions, too many of them long ago by now, THEN I HAVE SEEN GOD MOVE as a result in ways that would not have happened otherwise. I mean the "little" layings-down of life as in take up your cross and follow Me, as in hate even your own life for His sake, I mean as in counting others as more worthy than yourself, as in Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a grain of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abides alone: but if it die, it brings forth much fruit. Doing these things in the power of the Holy Spirit does bear fruit. But you have to FEEL it kill you or it's just a sham, it has to be HARD to do, it has to HURT, it has to COST. When you bear the cost willingly THEN it bears fruit. Fruit in deepening of your own spiritual life at least, but also fruit in effect on others.

So I'm preaching to myself first of all, I REALLY need to be reminded of this.

The willingness to die for your friend doesn't necessarily mean you WILL die, it's the willingness that makes the difference spiritually. The marine might yet have come home, God might have intervened in a miraculous way for both him and his friend, or both might have died. To die for the sake of Christ rather than hurt your friend would nevertheless have to be a powerful witness to the Afghans torturing them and standing around watching. There could have been a young Paul in the gathering, just as there was when Stephen was stoned to death calling for the forgiveness of his persecutors. Think of THAT fruit. However understandable the marine's reaction in the movie, think of what was lost by it if he was a Christian acting in the flesh instead of trusting in Christ.

Of course the movie wasn't a Christian movie, it was all about a mental breakdown that wouldn't have happened under the scenario I'm imagining. Mustn't forget, however, also to point out that the guilt-ridden marine himself needs Christ. At the end of the movie he is wondering if he can ever live again, and the only REAL answer is Yes, through Christ, Christ the forgiver of sin, Christ the redeemer of humanity. His guilt is exactly the burden Christ promises to relieve -- Matt 11:28: Come unto me, all you that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

Last thought: Most movies are of course stories about fallen humanity. I often have the thought while watching a movie how differently things would have turned out if a certain character had been a believer.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
* My post title, A Chance to Die, is the title of a book by Amy Carmichael, who began her dying for Christ as a young Irish woman by moving across the world to India where she spent her life rescuing girls from temple prostitution and bringing them up in a Christian environment.

"Heaven" stories again

Here's a comment posted on my blog entry about visits to "heaven," a well-written encouraging comment that I think deserves some attention. I suppose it could just be that I'm too lazy to write a post of my own today, or that I'm basking in getting a pat on the back, but I think it's less either of those things than that it makes me happy when someone else also recognizes the deception in this time of growing deception.

It's from another "Anonymous" commenter:

I am so glad you have the guts to post about this. There is such a need. You are like the voice of one crying in the wilderness...and very unpopular in mainstream Christianity I fear.

I just read the 1st chapter of the book about Alex Malarkey. While I do believe this family is very sincere, I also believe they have been deceived. As one who has recently left the charismatic movement where experiences and "manifestations" are weighted heaver than digging deeply into God's Word, I can understand how this happens. I found conflictual evidence to the Bible, albeit very subtle in the reading of the first chapter.

We as modern Christians are sorely lacking in Biblical/scriptural knowledge and it shows. We are emotional creatures; our flesh is ALWAYS needing attention and we are infested with sin. The devil knows this and he is a master at deceit...we tend to put too much value in ourselves in being discerning (pride) when in fact we should have our eyes on the LORD at all times. Why else would the LORD tell us to pray without ceasing? He knows this and that we are like (dumb) sheep gone astray.

There are many, many stories like this. It is so easy to get emotionally wrapped up and embrace them (human sentimentality & flesh) instead of doing the "mundane" work of being a "biblical archeologist" and making a stand for what God has revealed to us in His Word.

Furthermore, there should be no shame in defending the faith "as it was delivered" to us and calling out heresy. We are too worried about offending others and we should be more worried about offending God!

Exactly, Anonymous. A little uncomfortable with the "voice crying in the wilderness" expression but it's unfortunately true that there seem to be comparatively few calling out these things while the majority are taken in by them.

And thanks for the observation that this kind of gullibility does seem to be the influence of charismatic theology.

Sincerity isn't enough, there are sincere believers in all kinds of error.

And thank you again for posting a comment here.

The Philosophical Undoing of America and How the Sixties Nearly Undid Me

Woh, Brannon Howse must be doing something right. The vitriol directed against the man could curdle water (google him and follow the links, you'll see).

Brannon Howse is new to me. Discovered him through Jan Markell's site, and she's also new to me. I forget what took me to his site this morning, but was spending some time there glancing over this and that and found this book, Grave Influence, a book I thought I probably really should have.

Of course I often think that about books and don't buy them anyway, mostly because I can't afford them. Right now I have a little extra money though...

Anyway, this book is all about the thinkers of the past he considers to have been major instruments in the making of America's current philosophical debacle, and it's a great list. Most of them I'd put on a list of my own if I made one. Only a few of them I don't know anything or much about, and I might exchange a few for others or at least add some new names, but overall I have to say that just as it stands it's quite a good list. I think I can justify buying it as an essential reference book.

Its subtitle is 21 Radicals and Their Worldviews that Rule America from the Grave

This is it, the one book you need to read if you want to understand the big picture, connect all the dots, and understand current times, and future events and trends that will be unfolding. This ground-breaking book by best-selling author Brannon Howse is the result of thousands of hours of research over many years and is must reading for every teenager and adult.

Brannon reveals how the worldviews of 21 dead people are still influencing every aspect of American life and vying for the hearts and minds of adults and students. Whether we are discussing, law, science, economics, history, family, social issues, education or religion, the people and worldviews seeking to further their agenda in these disciplines are almost always connected back to four major forces. Brannon reveals the connection between occultism/pagan spirituality, the apostate church, the educational establishment and government/corporations.

Through this book you will come to understand the oppositions worldview, heroes, goals, strategies, masking terms, networks and targets. Those who share the worldviews of these 21 enemies of our constitutional republic and Biblical worldview do not want their agenda and its consequences to be revealed to the American people. Above all, they do not want us to equip and train our children and grandchildren with a Biblical worldview by which to recognize, reject, and fight against their seductive and destructive lies. This book will equip you to do just that as Brannon gives specific and pro-active responses you can take to make this the finest hour for the American church.

Here is the list of twenty-one for which Brannon has dug up worldview facts you must know and prepare to oppose:

Saul Alinsky,
Karl Marx,
John Dewey,
John Maynard Keynes,
Aldous Huxley,
Charles Darwin,
Friedrich Nietzsche,
Margaret Sanger,
William James,
Alice Bailey,
Helen Schucman,
Sigmund Freud,
Alfred Kinsey,
Benjamin Bloom,
B.F. Skinner,
The Frankfurt School,
Soren Kierkegaard,
Julius Wellhausen,
Christopher Columbus Langdell,
Betty Friedan and
Roger Baldwin

Topics covered include:

Corporate fascism, sustainable development, the Third Way, global governance, dialectic process, the Delphi technique, the Cloward-Piven Strategy and deliberate chaos, community organizing, Fabian socialism, the federal reserve and a fiat currency, America's decline is Europe's gain, cultural Marxism, government mandated youth service, legal positivism, postmodernism, soft-despotism, higher-criticism, pagan spirituality, feminism, welfare-state capitalism, the false-dominate church, the Emergent Church, the spiritual battle for America, the United Nations and occultism, unmasking the one-world religion, the deconstructionists in the culture and in the church, psychological labeling of dissenters, behavior modification, a planned economy, the assault on parental authority, the two tracks to globalism, Keynesian economics, collectivism, similarities between America and Nazi Germany, national leaders are a reflection of the people, social justice, why the culture war is lost if the church goes weak, is God judging America?, When and why does God judge a nation?, the environmentalist/globalist connection, cultural revolution/sexual revolution, the right to die becomes the duty to die, the true purpose of the law, why the State wants the children, are we all God's children? And much, much more.

Saul Alinsky, Karl Marx, John Dewey, John Maynard Keynes, Aldous Huxley, Charles Darwin, Friedrich Nietzsche, Margaret Sanger, William James, Alice Bailey, Helen Schucman, Sigmund Freud, Alfred Kinsey, Benjamin Bloom, B.F. Skinner, The Frankfurt School, Soren Kierkegaard, Julius Wellhausen, Christopher Columbus Langdell, Betty Friedan and Roger Baldwin

I first got wind of the Frankfurt School's destructive influence perhaps fifteen years ago, found out how their influence was very big -- pervasive -- and very destructive. Their ideas were part of the air you breathed in a college town in the sixties but at that time I hadn't known the source of those ideas, which are considered to be the underpinnings of Political Correctness. I followed reading up on them with some reading up on Roger Baldwin who founded the ACLU, then John Dewey. I already knew Marx, Darwin, Nietzsche, Sanger and Freud had made influential undesirable input. I still don't know much economic theory, so Keynes isn't on my own list yet. I didn't know Huxley or Alice Bailey had any particular influence on the culture, or B.F. Skinner, much as I despised his thinking back when it was big. Betty Friedan got her licks in for sure but I never thought of her as a big mover and shaker. So I guess I'll learn a few things from this book -- or disagree on a few things, probably both. In any case such a book is needed.

Funny, I already knew I wanted off this planet by the end of the sixties, when I was still a child of that generation and had no critical perspective to speak of on any of it, no coherent critical perspective anyway though the whole thing had disturbed me in some deep all-embracing way. I'd been part of it up to a point but profoundly alienated from it at the same time. It's hard to be coherent about it now because it wasn't clear in my mind then, but the feeling of distress it engendered in me returns when I think about it at all. In fact, thinking about it now I wonder how I remained at all sane through it.

The sixties is when it all started coming together for the sea change we've been living in ever since. There was something brewing I hated, the philosophical and political atmosphere was poison, but I didn't have any clear names for it then. There was no way to talk about it really either, except to describe the brooding gloomy feelings and the inchoate sense of being at odds with a nightmare world, because instead of gaining coherence by the talking it would be turned into a personal problem of your own, the focus would shift away from the real problem of a world gone loony onto your own problems of adjustment.

I wasn't a Christian until much later, and then Oh eternal gratitude to Thee, Lord, the sun of Reality and Truth broke through. (It just occurred to me now that one reason I never had a strong sense of myself as a sinner saved by grace is that I had SUCH a strong sense of having been saved from this poisonous world. Oh I know I'm a sinner and salvation is from my sins but that other salvation is probably going to dominate me until I see the Lord).

Back in those days B.F. Skinner might have been the only one I could have pointed to as the purveyer of a poisonous doctrine and I hated his stuff with a passion. One thing I knew I knew was that human beings aren't animals or automatons who get "conditioned" mechanistically and unconsciously -- or "programmed" to use probably the more current metaphor.

I didn't like a lot of what Freud had said either but wasn't able to criticize him clearly. I thought evolution was true, had read Darwin, accepted it but did have questions about how to prove his stuff that came up from time to time. I read Friedan but thought most feminism was silly. Not so much pernicious as just addlebrained -- because the earlier feminists HAD won the major battles. Some of the new feminists were deadly serious and even scary. (To be fair, I do think that although by the 60s the major injustices that had provoked the first wave of feminists had been overcome, there still was a patronizing belittling attitude toward women that did rankle and still needed to be dealt with, but nothing that could justify the Marxism-based rhetoric and results of the movement that followed).

It was all quite depressing to me, that decade where we were all supposed to be happy flower children. I wonder if I'm the only one who experienced it as I did, with that inarticulate alienation. It seems that either you hated it and knew why or loved it and knew why. I hated it but in some sense didn't know it, just "went with the flow" at least outwardly, or to the extent I did know it I struggled to understand why. It was hard to get a grip on it at least partly because I was surrounded by people who thought we were living through this wonderful change for the better. All the old musty morals and values were being challenged and brought down, you see, and a new dawn of humanistic possibilities was emerging right before our eyes. I assume everyone on that list of Brannon Howse's contributed to this wondrous new formulation of human potential in one way or another, it's the point of his book. (Just the term "human potential" brings many more names flooding to mind but I'll leave that for another pondering.)

I'm not sure I'd have done a lot better among people who hated the time and knew why, though, because I don't think they'd have had the right terms for what was really bothering me about it. (I now realize that must be because for them the problem was predominantly political, while for me it was philosophical. Their heirs are today's patriotic right-wing conservatives and I DO identify with them up to a point, those of my own generation particularly, but if they managed to live their lives without being unraveled by the sixties, even pleasantly engaged during that time, there's a limit on how far we can go together).

Anyway, what was bothering me about it: The attacks on America were part of it, the accusation of "American imperialism" from the left wing activists, but just a small part of it. It seemed to me that rationality had deserted the nation, at least it had deserted my generation. That much I did have clear in my mind. And the seventies were even worse, the pits, the dregs, as then there came sweeping in to fill up the holes that had been blown in Rationality the most irrational collection of babbling idiocies, the eastern religions and their Americanized offshoots.

I'm still incoherent about all this. It's still a blurry gray fog of experience I once had. I'm saved from it, it's safely Out There now, and from a Christian perspective it is possible to look at bits of it with some objectivity, a huge relief from the unnerving sense that everything was just going to go on chaotically and meaninglessly forever after. In a sense there is no longer a need to understand it even if I could, for my own personal wellbeing anyway, but I would still like to be able to get a better grip on it than I've had.

It's all about ideas, the ideas that were in the air, that have now come to define today's philosophical environment. The Zeitgeist of today. Can people still be saved from it?

So I want to read this book for what it may offer of further understanding of all that.

"Heaven" Deceptions are apparently a Winning Strategy of the Deceiver

Christian gullibility these days is quite astonishing it seems to me. My first post on the "heaven" stories has received some comments objecting to my take on them. I'm surprised at people's attachment to these stories, and surprised at the lack of discernment so many Christians have about these things.

If the Bible is well known there shouldn't be such a problem, so I have to suppose the Bible isn't well known. But the fact that the stories have been published by reputable Christian publishers must also add to the vulnerability to deception. What else may be involved I don't know, but it's a very disturbing trend.

We are certainly in a time of rampant deception, a time when there should be redoubled efforts to test the spirits rather than this careless acceptance of ear-tickling tales.

----

And then there is Glenn Beck. This one is subtle, one of the devil's prize strategies I think. Beck does such a convincing job of giving the gospel one even wants people to hear it. A Christian friend wants her unsaved family to hear him. Beck's gospel is counterfeit but that isn't immediately apparent. I don't know if anyone might be saved by it before its bogus nature is revealed but there is something odd about how he gets away with his preaching when true Christians can't say much of anything without being pounced on.

----

I also think the rejection of the woman's head covering may be a contributor to this state of affairs, as it is, after all, an undermining of a portion of God's word that has affected the church at large. A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump [1 Cor 5:6, Gal 5:9] A lack of reverent caution about some things of God could open the door to further ease of deception.

----

Add to that the general acceptance of the modern Bible Versions Trojan Horse, such that the churches accept a cacophony of Biblical readings as if that were a good thing, but worse, have accepted what are almost undoubtedly gnostically revised Greek manuscripts in place of the Received Text.

Glenn Beck not only a Mormon but now promoting New Age religion

The pieces seem to be coming together for the final Antichrist Religion as various channels unite toward one mega-belief system. The Catholic church has been preparing the ground for the incorporation of primitive religions for years as they embrace the pagan practices of the peoples where they dominate -- such as Haiti's voodoo -- and treat Islam as worshipping the same God as Christians. There is also a trend toward refusing to give the gospel based on the false teaching that all religions lead to God, Mother Teresa being a major proponent of that false teaching.

Now New Age beliefs such as promoted by Oprah Winfrey are getting a boost by Glenn Beck, as discussed in this article by Brannon Howse: Glenn Beck's New Book Reveals He Embraces New Age Theology, Is a Knowledgeable Mormon, and a Universalist .

Apparently Mormonism has a lot in common with New Ageism. Here's Brannon Howse on this subject:

In August of 2010, I predicted on my national radio program that it was only a matter of time before Glenn Beck would release a distinctively religious book that would promote his New Age Mormonism and universalism. I sensed that Glenn was setting himself up to be the politically conservative alternative to Oprah.

Many self-professing Christians cannot see what Beck is up to but there are those in the unsaved world that seem to be exhibiting more worldview understanding than some in the Christian community. The Business Insider published an article on January 4, 2011 entitled, Glenn Beck's New Year's Plan Sounds A Lot Like Oprah's New Network.

Last week (second week of January 2011) Beck released his latest book entitled The Seven Wonders That Will Change Your Life. The book is co-authored by psychiatrist Dr. Keith Ablow.

Beck's new book is nothing less than the promotion of universalism, postmodernism, and pagan spirituality, also known as the New Age Movement.

The whole article is interesting, and here's another from his site that's equally interesting Glenn Beck and Oprah Winfrey Launch New Age Programming for 2011:

I tried to warn Americans in 2010 that I believe Glenn Beck is guilty of performing a bait and switch on millions of Americans. Beck went from being a TV and radio talk show host that discussed public policy, history, and current news to preaching the same Universalism and New Age theology that Oprah Winfrey has being been preaching for years. In fact, On Saturday, January 1, 2011, Oprah launched her New Age programming for the year with the Oprah Winfrey Network. Oprah drew more than 1 million viewers for its first night on the air.

Glenn Beck has clearly become the Oprah Winfrey of the right and many Christian authors and pastors are eager to appear on his radio and television program despite his heresy because, like Oprah, Beck has taken little known authors and made them a lot of money by promoting their books.

Many Christians continue to defend Beck despite the fact he is becoming more and more blatant in his New Age preaching. I expect Beck will continue to gather around him a huge audience that is looking for a spiritual experience that tickles the ears.

I would never have guessed that there are so many Christians who could fall for this kind of thing. That's at least as disturbing as the fact that the One World Religion is taking shape before our eyes. I hope their fall into deception is temporary.

Christmas is NOT a pagan holiday

I'm more and more convinced that rejecting Christmas as a pagan holiday simply because it replaced a pagan holiday is very wrong. As I said on my other blog about this a few days ago, it is Christ overcoming the world when this happens, quite the opposite of paganism being honored. The paganism is no longer there, Christ has conquered it. There is no one who celebrates Saturnalia on Christmas any more, or if there are some they are out on the fringe and have nothing to do with Christmas anyway.

Likewise, there is no one who celebrates Ishtar on Easter either. Perhaps it should be Passover instead but that's a controversy I'm not going to get into. Easter is now the Christian celebration of the resurrection of Christ. Until the owlish ones got all het up about the meaning of the term "Easter" most of us had no idea about its pagan origins and we were better off when we didn't. It's the Lord's resurrection now, that's how people experience it, that's what's in people's minds and hearts and I have to think God knows it and therefore accepts it.

Some Christians also deal with the pagan holiday of Halloween by substituting harvest concepts. Perhaps we should make it an all-out Day of the Harvest of Souls anticipating the Lord's return. This is a perfectly reasonable thing to do with a pagan holiday that we can't participate in.

It's a superstition to make so much out of the bare historical fact when what matters to God is what is ACTUALLY going on in people's minds and hearts -- THAT is what is ACTUALLY being celebrated. The ancient meaning of the date is now meaningless. Nobody would even remember it if it weren't for those who are trying to stumble us over it. It's just another day and if we celebrate Christ on that day then it is Christ's day, not some pagan god's.

I happened to hear R C Sproul talking on this subject over the radio recently. I couldn't find the actual talk online but I did find this brief essay by him on the same subject:

BlogArticles
Is the Celebration of Christmas a Pagan Ritual?
from R.C. Sproul

That question comes up every year at Christmastime. In the first place, there’s no direct biblical commandment to celebrate the birth of Jesus on December 25. There’s nothing in the Bible that would even indicate that Jesus was born on December 25. In fact, there’s much in the New Testament narratives that would indicate that it didn’t occur during that time of year. It just so happens that on the twenty-fifth of December in the Roman Empire there was a pagan holiday that was linked to mystery religions; the pagans celebrated their festival on December 25. The Christians didn’t want to participate in that, and so they said, “While everybody else is celebrating this pagan thing, we’re going to have our own celebration. We’re going to celebrate the thing that’s most important in our lives, the incarnation of God, the birth of Jesus Christ. So this is going to be a time of joyous festivities, of celebration and worship of our God and King.”

I can’t think of anything more pleasing to Christ than the church celebrating his birthday every year.

However, if the consciences of some tell them for the sake of Christ not to celebrate Christmas it seems to me that should be respected, according to scripture:

Romans 14:5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. 6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks. 7 For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself. 8 For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's. 9 For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living. 10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.

At the same time they ought to respect those who do celebrate Christmas for the sake of Christ since in our minds there is nothing pagan about it at all, and stop trying to prove that we're really celebrating something pagan. We're not and the accusation only distresses people who are also members of the body of Christ.

Jesus owns every day on the calendar and should be celebrated on every day.