7 Apologetics Podcasts Worth Giving a Listen + 1

Radio2

Other than thought-provoking entertainment, especially when you’re stuck in a car, there are three big benefits to listening to the right Christian podcasts:

(1)  The right podcasts give you access to topnotch Christian scholars and thinkers, and these people have a wealth of experience and knowledge.

(2)  Even as a former seminary student and an avid reader, I’ve come to realize the knowledge I’ve gained from my podcast listening is substantial (and the effort is minimal). Plus, podcasts often point me to books and other resources for going deeper.

(3)  Podcasts are up-to-date, addressing current events and topics of importance to Christians right now.

So, even if you don’t have a long commute, pick a podcast to listen to while you’re folding laundry or mowing the lawn or eating breakfast.  If you can’t listen to a whole show in one sitting, so what? — Listen to it in parts, even if it’s just for 10 minutes at a time.

Way back in 2013, I wrote a blog recommending Christian podcasts, so I figured it was time to update that article. (Plus, I’ve been busy with other projects and ministries, so I’ve been neglecting GFTM!)

The first three podcasts listed below also appeared on my 2013 list. Clearly, these three have been staples of my listening for years. So, where all of these podcasts are recommended, the first three have stood the test of time.

 

(1) UNBELIEVABLE?

Unbelievable-

This British radio show is primarily civil debates/discussions between people of opposing views on various topics, whether it’s Christians debating atheists or other non-Christians or Christians debating Christians about issues within the church.

Justin Brierley, the host, does a great job of fairly mediating the debates/discussions, making sure both sides have time to flesh out their views and that the listener doesn’t get lost if it gets too academic.

Unbelievable? gives you a good introduction at controversial issues and exposes you to opposing views on that issue. The subject matter varies from current cultural topics (transgenderism, social justice, etc.) to topics concerning the existence of God and the trustworthiness of the Bible to other philosophical and theological questions.

Also, check out Justin Brierley’s Youtube series The Big Conversation.

 

(2) STAND TO REASON

STR

Host Greg Koukl has been challenged and tested for the over 27 years he’s been doing this show. He opens most episodes by sharing some thoughts concerning Christianity or a cultural topic, and then he answers callers’ questions on any number of topics encompassing Christianity — from personal application of biblical teachings to interpreting scripture to philosophical issues and apologetics.

Koukl’s ability to confidently, satisfactorily, and evenhandedly answer the vast diversity of questions he receives is testimony to his wealth of experience and what a valuable resource he is. Part of the fun of listening to Stand to Reason is thinking, “Wow, that’s a tough question! How will Greg possibly answer this?” and then listening to Greg’s response.

Also, check out Koukl’s two books, Tactics and The Story of Reality, and Stand to Reason’s website as a resource.

 

(3) THE BRIEFING

breifing

Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, the largest seminary in the U.S., examines current world news from a Christian perspective.  New episodes are posted every Monday through Friday. In each 20-minutes episode, Dr. Mohler gives an overview of current events, and then he analyzes them from a biblical worldview.

The Briefing is a great, quick way to keep up on important news and issues that should interest Christians one way or another, some of which get lost in all of the noise of this media age. Dr. Mohler draws from a variety of established media sources, both left- and right-leaning, and he makes all the articles he refers to available on his website.

Dr. Mohler has a background in radio, so each episode is crisp, smooth, and professional. The historical background and insight Dr. Mohler often provides during his commentary is priceless.

Also, check out Dr. Mohler’s other occasional podcast Thinking in Public.

 

(4) THE JUDE 3 PROJECT

Jude3

The Jude 3 Project exists to help Christians “know what they believe and why they believe it” with a distinctive focus on the African American community.

Like most of the podcasts on this list, the Jude 3 Project does a great job of addressing theological, cultural, and apologetic topics concerning Christians, but it also does a great job showing how both historically and biblically Christianity is not just “the white man’s religion.”

The Jude 3 Project has introduced me to many Christian scholars addressing specific topics which concern the African American community (and should concern all Christians) that I wouldn’t have been exposed to otherwise. The Jude 3 Project is providing an important service (and becoming an important resource) to all Christians.

Also, check out their website for resources.

 

(5) THREE CHORDS AND THE TRUTH

3Chords

Three Chords and the Truth wins the prize for the best balance of being informative and fun.

Each 40-minute episode has three parts. The first part focuses on apologetics – arguments for the trustworthiness of the New Testament and the resurrection of Jesus. Part two is some brief  “geek talk,” where they discuss a “tough topic” in comic books, sci-fi, and fantasy. (Who would win in a fight: Gandalf or Yoda? What’s more powerful: the Infinity Gauntlet or the Elder’s Wand from Harry Potter?) Finally, they look at a classic rock song from a theological perspective.

Honestly, I’ve learned just as much about rock history as Christian apologetics listening to this podcast.

Also, Timothy Paul Jones, one of the hosts, is a wealth of information. Check out his books.

 

(6) THINK BIBLICALLY

thinkingbiblically

I just started listening to this weekly podcast, but it has two top-notch hosts, Sean McDowell and Scott Rae, professors at Biola University’s Talbot School of Theology, a key school in training Christian apologists. The format is easy: a 30-minute interview with a Christian author or thinker.

Looking through their backlog of interviews, I see nothing but names worth listening to on topics worth thinking about.

Also, Sean McDowell, though he’s the one doing the interviewing instead of being interviewed, is a great teacher. Be sure to seek out his other work.

 

(7) APOLOGIA RADIO

apologia

Apologia Radio wasn’t on my 2013 list of podcasts, but I’ve been listening to it regularly almost as long as my “Top 3.” If there’s a podcast on this list that’s going to ruffle a lot of feathers, it’s this one. Apologia doesn’t pull any punches (and they have fun while doing it).

They’re especially good with addressing atheism, abortion, and cults, like Mormonism. They hold strong stances on some theological views, such as Calvinism, presuppositional apologetics, and post-millennialism eschatology. (If you don’t know what those things are, you will if you listen to Apologia Radio long enough.)

Overall, even if you don’t agree with every stance the guys and gal of Apologia take, you will be challenged, and they do a great job of engaging the culture from a biblical worldview.

Also check out Joy of Apologia’s other podcast, Sheologians, and Apologia’s many Youtube videos.

 

(8) THIS AMERICAN LIFE

TAL

Though this wasn’t on my 2013 list, it certainly should’ve been. This American Life is not a Christian show, so it wasn’t on my last list and it shouldn’t be on this list, but I’m including it anyway. I’ve been listening to This American Life longer than every podcast on this list.

Each episode is an hour long and centers on a (loose) theme with (give or take) three true stories connected to that theme. The beauty of this show is that it often centers on people and things you would’ve never heard about anywhere else, and the stories surrounding them are engrossing, entertaining, and often quirky.

I love this show. No, it’s not a Christian show, but it’s professional journalism with master story-telling at its best.

Keeping Chaos in Christmas: Hitler Vs. Christmas

hitlerChristmas

If there were ever a historical person who would surely be a Grinch at Christmas time, I’m sure many people would put forth that that person would be Hitler.

Dr. Gerry Bowler’s book Christmas in the Crosshairs: Two Thousand Years of Denouncing and Defending the World’s Most Celebrated Holiday is an interesting romp through history showing (among other things) how the world’s most celebrated celebration simply can’t be ignored — not by anyone — not by communists, nor fascists, nor even the National Socialist German Workers’ Party — better know as the Nazis.

In one of the most fascinating sections of the book, Dr. Bowler documents how the unstoppable force that is Christmas was addressed by the totalitarian regimes of the 20th Century. The most interesting and, dare I say, outlandish attempt to stop Christmas was by none other than Hitler.

 

THE NAZI REBRANDING OF CHRISTMAS

Hitler understood that Christmas tradition was “deeply embedded in the German consciousness” and in “what it meant to be truly German.” Therefore, it wouldn’t work to simply ban it.

Even before the 1933 elections that brought Hitler into power, the Nazis used Christmas to advance their anti-Semitic agenda by urging consumers to boycott Jewish businesses. This included picketing and vandalizing Jewish-owned businesses.

After 1933, Goebbels and his Ministry of National Enlightenment and Propaganda went to work rebranding Christmas. Not only did they use Christmas to promote their hateful nationalism, but they would eventually try to wipe the “Christ” out of Christmas. After all, what could the most notorious anti-Semitic regime in history have to do with a season celebrating the most influential Jew of all time?

In the same year, a film was released depicting the Nativity with Mary, Joseph, and the newborn Prince of Peace not only beneath a portrait of Hitler, but surrounded by Nazi stormtroopers and medieval German knights.

Also in 1933, the German Christian Movement took control of the national Protestant Church and aligned it with the Nazis. Jesus — a Jewish Middle Eastern man — was recast as an Aryan victim of the Jews! Alters were decorated with swastikas, and pagan ceremonies were introduced. Nativity plays were banned. Pastors like Martin Niemoller and Dietrich Bonhoeffer resisted, resulting in imprisonment for one and martyrdom for the other.

“Hosanna” and “Hallelujah” were removed from songs for being too Hebrew. The Norse god Baldur replaced Jesus in songs. Children were taught a new version of the classic German Christmas carol “Stille Nacht” (Silent Night):

“Silent night, Holy night, All is calm, all is bright. Adolf Hitler is Germany’s star, Showing us greatness and glory afar, Bringing us Germans the might.”

A Christmas narrative song called Heliand, which begins with John 1:1 (“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God“), changed into a song about “German myth, dragons, adultery, blood feuds, and racism.” To top it all off, Jesus was presented as the ancient Germanic god Wotan (also know as one-eyed Odin of Norse mythology). Perhaps against his own instincts for self-preservation, the president of the Reich Musical Chamber actually protested in 1937 against an attempt to change the biblical lyrics to Handel’s masterpiece Messiah.

In the years following, Christmas became more nationalized, secularized, and paganized in Germany. Hitler issued instructions on how to celebrate Christmas correctly. Eventually, teams of trained women would be flown into conquered lands to instruct the locals.

HITLER, NO FRIEND TO JEW OR CHRISTIAN

Today, it’s not uncommon to hear anti-Christians claim that Hitler, one of the most notoriously evil men in history, was a Christian. With just a little historical research, one can discover that Hitler Youth sang,

“No evil priest can prevent us from feeling that we are the children of Hitler. We follow not Christ, but Horst Wessel!”

(Horst Wessel was a leader of the Nazi stormtroopers.)

And banners in Berlin read,

“Down with a Christ who allows himself to be crucified! The German God cannot be a suffering God! He is a God of power and strength!”

This doesn’t sound like the slogans of a Christ-friendly regime.

Some of the Nazi inner circle, including Heinrich Himmler and other SS leaders, were true pagans, worshippers of the ancient Germanic gods. One SS leader said, “We live in the age of the final confrontation with Christianity.” Christmas was rebranded as the winter solstice, the Julfest (Yuletide) season. A spinning sun, a symbol of the solstice, replaced traditional Christmas symbols.

December 6th has been celebrated for centuries as the day of Saint Nicholas (the precursor of our modern Santa Claus), but in Nazi Germany it became Wotan’s Day. The Nazis rewrote history, claiming December 6th had belonged to Wotan, “The Rider on the Grey Horse,” all along, but then Christianity showed up and replaced him with St. Nick.

Despite some current arguments that our modern Santa Claus was based on Wotan/Odin, the fact remains that Saint Nicolas was established as a magically flying, miracle-working saint long before Christian contact with Scandinavian. (To read about the history of Saint Nicolas and Santa Claus, see our previous article.) The first people in history, according to Bowler, to make the argument that Wotan/Odin was the original Santa Claus were the Nazis.

 

A LOSING BATTLE

As Hitler led Germany into war in 1939, the Christian message — with all its ideas of “peace on earth” and “turning the other cheek” — didn’t mesh well with the Nazi vision, to say the least. It’s likely Hitler had to take into account that Germany has a long, rich history of Christianity (Heck, Martin Luther — who launched the Protestant Reformation — was German!) and everyday Germans loved Christmas.

Therefore, the solution was “to avoid any direct attack on the traditional Christmas but to use the state’s power, whenever possible, to promote a non-Christian view of the holiday.”

It makes sense that Hitler would try to suppress the holiday celebrating the birth of the one who taught, “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy… Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God” (Matt 5:7, 9) and “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven” (Matt 5:44-45).

Can anything be more oppositional to what Hitler was trying to accomplish?

But it must be noted that despite being surrounded by Nazi pressure, world warfare, and moral deterioration, evidence exists that the true nature of Christmas could not be removed and, thus, continued in the hearts of the German people. (For example, see below an image of the “Stalingrad Madonna,” drawn on the back of a map during the Battle of Stalingrad.)

Death could not suppress God’s Son. Is it any wonder Hitler failed as well?

READ:

Keeping Chaos in Christmas: Santa Claus – Christian Saint or Pagan Satan?

Keeping Chaos in Christmas: Pagan or Christian Celebration? A Short History of December 25th

Why is Christmas on December 25th?

Me & My Wife VS. My Kid & St. Nick: Breaking It to a 5-Year-Old Santa Isn’t Real

MadonnaofStalingrad1

 

Keeping Chaos in Christmas: Santa Claus – Christian Saint or Pagan Satan?

 

stnicholas-painting-wmaster

Santa Claus is “the dominate fictional character in our world. Neither Micky Mouse nor Sherlock Holmes, Ronald McDonald nor Harry Potter wields a fraction of the influence that Santa does… His image is recognized and loved all around the planet,” Dr. Gerry Bowler, history professor at the University of Manitoba, writes in his book Santa Claus: A Biography.

In our last GFTM article, Keeping the Chaos in Christmas: Pagan or Christian Celebration? A Short History of the Battle Over December 25th, we looked at what Dr. Bowler documents so well in another one of his books, Christmas in the Crosshairs. As we saw, many of the modern debates about Christmas have been going on since the beginning, including whether the celebration of Christ’s birth has been too heavily influenced by pagan folk customs. 

Of course, one can’t enter into these debates without the jolly fat man being considered either.

Where it’s difficult to trace when exactly and to what extent many of these pagan folk traditions entered the Christian celebration of Christmas, historic evidence shows us this happened after 300 AD over a period of centuries and varied from place to place as Christianity spread far and wide. (For more details, see the previous article.)

Gift-giving goes way back to the pagan festivals Christmas eventually replaced, and there is a “long association between Christmas and gift-giving” that was “long criticized by the church” for materialism and “lingering paganism.” But the popularity of these customs among the everyday people won out, and eventually the church Christianized them. Gift-giving for Christmas was linked by the church with charity to the poor and the bringing of gifts to the newborn Jesus.

Yet, the gift-giving Saint Nicholas didn’t appear until the 12th Century.

SAINT NICHOLAS, SUPER HERO SAINT

Traditions existed of gifts being delivered to children by various miraculous saints on the eves of their holy days: Saint Barbara, Saint Martin, Saint Lucia, the Wise Men, and others.

But Saint Nicholas, by far, was the most popular.

By 1,100 AD, Saint Nicholas’ popularity was rivaled only by the Virgin Mary. Saint Nicholas was “the most powerful male saint on the Church calendar: the patron of sailors, Vikings, Russians, Normans, barrel-makers, thieves, perfumers, picklers, florists, haberdashers, and many more – but especially of children.”

Little, if anything, can be said with any historical certainty about St. Nicholas. He was the bishop of Myra on the coast of modern Turkey in the early 4th Century. He allegedly died on December 6, 343 AD.

In the 12th Century, he was believed to be a magical deliverer of small gifts to kids on the eve of his day, December 6. Children prayed to him and left out their shoes to be filled with treats. But legend says he did much more than that.

He was a wonder worker of miracles; in fact, he was a darn super hero long before the first comic book was ever imagined. He rescued sailors, soldiers, children, starving people, and slaves.

He once saved three daughters from being sold into a life of prostitution by secretly delivering bags of gold to their poor father at night. Perhaps this has some truth to it as any non-super human could perform such a heroic act, but he also brought three murdered young men back from the dead after they were dismembered, shoved into barrels, and pickled! Apparently, he flew long before Superman entered the scene. He also was able to do what can only be called teleportation of both himself and others.

Clearly, he was a nurturing, passionate (super) man, but he was no wimp or pushover either. He often was portrayed as carrying a whip or rod. Children both loved and feared him. He expected children and others to keep up with their church lessons and to be moral.

My mother-in-law, who grew up in Germany, said when she was a child someone dressed as St. Nicholas visited their home. He asked her and her siblings if they had been behaving. Her father replied, “Not all of the time.” St. Nicholas then gave each of their hands a stern smack with his rod.

PROTESTING PROTESTANTS vs. ST. NICK

After the Protestant Reformation in 1517, the tradition of Saint Nicholas, along with devotion to other saints of the Catholic Church, came under fire and were banned in areas controlled by Protestants. In England, Elizabeth I in 1558 ended all Saint Nicholas related activities. In England and Scotland, gift-giving moved to New Year’s Day.

Saint Nicholas survived in eastern Europe, where the influence of the Reformation was weaker. He also survived in Holland, where there were both Catholic and Protestant areas. (It was the Dutch who would eventually bring Saint Nicolas to North America.)

Both German Catholics and Protestants replaced Saint Nicholas with a figure that was much more Bible-based: the Christ Child (das Christkindl). Thus, this moved the gift-giving from December 6 to Christmas Eve, December 24. (To read why Christmas is celebrated on December 25, see our previous article.)

But Baby Jesus just wasn’t menacing enough for parents. Parents wanted a figure that would instill some fear into their kids to help keep them in line. Saint Nicholas was benevolent but also a disciplinarian. After all, the dude carried a rod for beating children.

So, new figures started to appear who accompanied the Christ Child to substitute for Saint Nicolas’ rod. But these characters brought menacing to a whole new level! Many were downright horrifying: Aschenklaus (Nicholas in Ashes), Pelznickel or Belsnickel (Nicholas in Furs) and Ru-Klaus (Rough Nicholas), along with an “assortment of devils, witches with iron teeth, female disembowers, monstrous goats, or monks armed with switches” and Krampus, Hans Trapp, and Klabauf, who carried whips, chains, and sacks to steal away children.

Meanwhile, Catholics kids in southern Europe got the better end of the deal. They received gifts on Epiphany (January 6) from the Three Kings or the kindly good witch Befana or a “pooping log” (!?!).

THE MODERN MAKEOVER

It was not until the 1800s that our modern version of Santa Claus emerged.

In 1809, Washington Irving published a mock history called A History of New-York from the Beginning of the World to the End of the Dutch Dynasty. This satire introduced Saint Nicholas, who the Dutch loved and still celebrated on December 6. For those outside NY, this was the first time many heard of “any flying, supernatural, nocturnal Christmas Gift-Bringer.”

One year later in 1810, John Pintard, a prominent merchant and founder of the New-York Historical Society, gave out a picture of Saint Nicholas accompanied by a poem. St. Nick was pictured as a stern-looking man in a bishop’s robe with a rod and a halo over his head. (See below.)

StNick

More poems soon followed by others, one calling him “Sancte Claus.” In the next few years, variations of the Dutch name for Saint Nicolas, Sinterklaas, appeared in American print: Santa-claw, Santeclaus, Sandy Claw, Santiclaw, Sanctus Klaas. All were based on oral, folk traditions with slightly different takes on the gift-giving wonder worker.

In 1821, the first lithographed work in the U.S. was also the first to publish a picture of “Santeclaus.” It was titled The Children’s Friend, a poem complete with the essential modern staples for Santa Claus: gifts on Christmas Eve, a team of reindeer, snowy chimney tops. Bowler writes, “The Children’s Friend wrench[ed] Santa Clause out of his Dutch context and plac[ed] him in a winter setting appropriate to North America in December.”

A year later, Clement Clarke Moore wrote a series of poetry for his daughters and published them anonymously in the newspaper the following year, titled “Account of a Visit from St. Nicholas.” This would become the Christmas classic familiar to many today:

’Twas the night before Christmas, when all thro’ the house,
Not a creature was stirring, not even a mouse;
The stockings were hung by the chimney with care,
In hopes that St. Nicholas soon would be there
When, what to my wondering eyes should appear,
But a miniature sleigh, and eight tiny rein-deer
Down the chimney St. Nicholas came with a bound
He had a broad face, and a little round belly
That shook when he laugh’d, like a bowl full of jelly…
But I heard him exclaim, ere he drove out of sight —
Happy Christmas to all, and to all a good night.

Moore ignited an explosion of interest in this Saint Nicolas. Writers and illustrators competed to add to the story. “For decades there was no one standard version of the nocturnal visitor nor even agreement as to his name,” Bowler writes.  Some names included Kriss Kringle, Belsnickel, or some variation of “Santa Claus.”

Even his size was debated. Was he a small elf, even thumb-sized, to fit down chimneys? Was he a bearded grandfatherly-type or a smooth-faced youth? Sometimes he was dressed like a Dutch peddler; at other times he was dressed like George Washington.

By 1850, his home was securely set in the Arctic where he lived with his minions, a horde of elves. In the 1860s, German American cartoonist Thomas Nast in Harper’s solidified what Santa looks like today.

In Europe, most continued to hold on to their own versions of a magical figure delivering Christmas goodies, but the harsher holdouts from the Middle Ages — Perchta the Disemboweler in central Europe; Père Fouettard and his whip in France; the demonic Krampus, who stole children in Austria; the cannibal giant Gryla in Iceland; the horrifying goat-beast Joulopukki of Scandinavia — were replaced by a considerably more kinder, gentler version of “Santa.” Father Christmas, Pere Noel, Bobbo Natale, Samiclaus, and others emerged. They all were variations of the Santa Claus theme, but all were big-hearted, grandfatherly gift-givers.

Bowler writes, “By midcentury the American Santa Claus was not only a fixture in the stories told in American homes, he was a positive boon to merchants.” Whatever else he was, this Christmas gift-bringer ended up being a business man’s dream.

READ:

Keeping Chaos in Christmas: Pagan or Christian Celebration? A Short History of December 25th

Me & My Wife VS. My Kid & St. Nick: Breaking It to a 5-Year-Old Santa Isn’t Real

 

St Nicolas
Santa

Keeping Chaos in Christmas: Pagan or Christian Celebration? A Short History of December 25th.

ChristmasChaos

Last Christmas season, I wrote a blog about how my wife and I decided that we would not be doing “the Santa thing” with our children. Ironically, of all the stuff I’ve posted on this blog, this turned out to be the most controversial.

The other thing that struck me with mild amusement is no one even bothered engaging with our reasons, leading me to suspect that many giving me pushback only read the title and didn’t actually read the article. Among some of the debate, the weatherbeaten topic of whether Christmas has a pagan origin arose. Again, this has nothing to do with my wife and I deciding not to perpetuate the Santa tradition with our children, but since it’s a topic of debate that often comes up, I decided it was something worth looking more deeply in to.

I recently read Christmas in the Crosshairs: Two Thousand Years of Denouncing and Defending the World’s Most Celebrated Holiday by Gerry Bowler, who received his Ph.D. in history from King’s College in London. He’s a professor at the University of Manitoba and founding director of the Centre for the Study of Christianity and Contemporary Culture at Calgary’s Nazarene University College.

What Dr. Bowler’s book lays out so well is that the same debates that surround Christmas today have pretty much been going on since the beginning:

How should people celebrate the birth of Christ? Debated.

On what date was Jesus born? Debated.

Is December 25th really a pagan holiday? Debated.

Should Christians even celebrate the birth of Christ at all? Debated.

THE FIRST 3 CENTURIES

Christmas, as we celebrate it in the United States today, is a mixture of Christian and non-Christian elements. After all, the holiday is named after Christ and, regardless of when he was born, it marks the event of his birth as special. Are many of the traditions practiced during modern Christmas not based in a biblical Christian faith but instead in folk traditions from numerous cultures? Certainly. Do some of these folk traditions have pagan religious roots? It seems very likely.

If we go back to the first century to the New Testament, the earliest Christian documents we have, they never say whether Christians should celebrate the birth of Christ or not. Based on the New Testament and other historical evidence, we know what year Jesus was born, but nothing is said in the Bible about the specific month or day.

Interestingly, historic evidence tells us that several centuries passed before Christians even started celebrating the birth of Christ. The early church focused instead on the death and resurrection and imminent return of Christ. It should be noted only two of the four Gospel writers (Matthew and Luke) even included anything about Jesus’ birth in their narratives.

In the 2nd century, pagan critics like Celsus, a Greek philosopher, targeted Christianity and began mocking the virgin birth. The 2nd century also saw the rise of Gnosticism, a heresy which combined Christian beliefs with Greek philosophy. Gnostics denied that Christ truly took on flesh; it was only an illusion; he had remained spirit because the material world is, according to them, evil. At this time, Christian writers started focusing more on the birth of Christ.

By the third century, Christian writers had started speculating about when specifically Jesus was born but not particularly to celebrate it. Some favored dates in May or April, but December 25 and January 6 were dates also proposed. Though some opposed celebrating the birthday of Christ as a holy day, other evidence shows Christians started to take more interest in Christ’s day of birth.

In 312 AD, Emperor Constantine made Christianity a legal religion in the Roman Empire, and Christians now had the freedom to partake in holy days publicly. Christ’s birth was soon being celebrated. The exact year it became widely celebrated throughout the church is not known, but a document from 354 AD called Philocalian Chronograph, a sort-of almanac, lists it as a holy day on December 25.

THE BATTLE OVER DECEMBER 25th

Why December 25th?

Here are some often-repeated theories:

THEORY #1 – As the Roman Empire transitioned from paganism to Christianity, Constantine or some other Roman or Christian leaders chose to replace a pagan holiday on December 25th with a Christian holiday.

Or

THEORY #2 – Before Christianity was legalized in 312 AD, Christians would hold their own festivities at the same time as pagan holidays to camouflage their own gatherings. This would certainly make sense during the times Christians came under severe persecution by the Roman government.

Some of the usual suspects of the original pagan holiday for December 25 are:

  • The feast of Saturnalia.
  • Brumalia, dedicated to Saturn and Bacchus.
  • The birthday of the Unconquered Sun (Sol Invictus).
  • The birthday of the Iranian deity Mithra.
  • Some other winter solstice celebration.

PROBLEM #1 – Now, the big problem with both Theories #1 and #2 is simply this: there’s no evidence for them. Not that there’s no evidence for pagan festivals around the same time as December 25, but there’s nothing anywhere saying that Christians started celebrating Christmas during this time for one of these reasons.

Further, one telltale sign of a theory without evidence is a lack of specificity; in other words, it’s common to claim that Christmas is on December 25th because of a pagan holiday, yet (as the list above shows) no one seems able to say which holiday. In fact, the earliest evidence of anyone making this sort of argument dates from the twelve century!

PROBLEM #2 – Moreover, there’s other issues with the pagan-replacement theory. Modern scholarship says it’s quite possible that some of these pagan festivals, especially the birthday of the Unconquered Sun, were started after Christians began marking December 25 as a special day. On top of this, claims of similarities between the Iranian deity Mithra and Christ are complete fabrications, including the December 25th virgin birth of Mithra.

PROBLEM #3 – The mindset of the early church has to be taken into account. To the irk of their pagan neighbors, Christians and Jews have always been stubbornly exclusivists; they believe in only one true God and one true faith. Historical evidence tells us that “countless sermons and books by preachers and leaders of the young Church stressed the need to avoid any association with the world of idols and state cults.”

Though it appears pagan folk customs eventually intertwined with Christmas tradition over the centuries after Christianity became widely practiced, it’s highly doubtful the devout, often-persecuted early church would adopt pagan practices, especially when it was often persecuted by the surrounding pagans for not adopting their practices!

PROBLEM #4 – With this, no records from that time explaining the dating for Christmas use any of the above theories.

CHRISTIAN EXPLANATION #1 – Instead, one explanation (which seems odd to us modern folks) is the ancient idea that great men were born and died on the same date. Thus, since Jesus was crucified in late March, he may have been born around that time too. But if we start calculating at conception, the correct beginning of a life, that would put Jesus’ birth in late December.

CHRISTIAN EXPLANATION #2 – Another explanation was based on another ancient idea that the first day God created the earth was springtime, and since Jesus’ birth was comparable to the creation of the universe, the angel must have appeared to Mary to tell her she was pregnant through the Holy Spirit on March 25. Then, nine months later, Jesus was born in December.

CHRISTIAN EXPLANATION #3 – Some calculations for Jesus’ birth resulting in the December 25th date start with the account in the Gospel of Luke, Chapter 1, of John the Baptist’s miraculous conception. His conception took place when John’s father, Zechariah, was serving in the Temple at their tribe’s appointed time. By examining the tribal duty roster found in the Old Testament, it was concluded John was born on June 25th. Luke records Mary, Jesus’ mother, visited John’s mother, Elizabeth, in the 6th month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy. So, December 25th fits once again.

At the same time, other Christian churches adopted January 6th to mark Christmas or “Epiphany,” including Constantinople, Jerusalem, and Antioch. This date may have been chosen because they used a different dating system and/or calculated the date of Easter differently than the West. Eventually, some of these churches adopted the December date as well, but some Eastern churches still adhere to January 6th today.

In 529 AD, Emperor Justinian made December 25th a national holiday. As centuries past, December 25 to January 6 became the Twelve Days of Christmas and the Advent season also developed.

Bowler observes astutely, “For whatever reason the Roman church chose December 25 as the date on which to celebrate the Nativity, it was a momentous decisions that would cause centuries of controversy and conflict.”

GROWTH INTO A SPECTACLE

Bowler writes, “From the 300s on, the observance surrounding the celebration of the Nativity became more laden with rituals, art, and music, until it grew into the second holiest day on the Christian calendar.”

Just as the debate about December 25th continues until this day, the debate about how to celebrate the birth of Christ (as well as the role of pagan traditions in celebrating) stretch from ancient times until now.

For whatever reason December 25th was chosen, it has proven to be troublesome.

For one, preventing a co-mingling of the traditions proved difficult with Christmas being celebrated around the same time as the pagan midwinter celebrations, especially if you consider that after Emperor Constantine, Christianity went from a small group of devout followers to a very large group with many nominal followers.

Arguments were made that Christians should not celebrate the birth of their Lord and Savior as the pagans celebrate. This didn’t just mean not adopting pagan folk traditions, like decorating homes with greenery; this meant not doing things to excess – excessive eating, excessive gift-giving (or excessive expectations of gifts), excessive drinking. Times haven’t changed all that much. Some argued Christians should mark this holy day not by greed but by fasting and charity.

Eventually, many church leaders recognized they couldn’t stop the masses from practicing the customs they loved so. Thus, instead of banning them, they Christianized them. Certain pagan and folk traditions, as long as they didn’t conflict with Scripture, were claimed for Christ. They were re-branded and given new meaning connected to the Christian message.

But, as you’re well aware, the debate never ended.

Where much of the Christian/pagan debate about Christmas today has to do with grumpy atheists and non-Christians using the pagan argument to discredit Christmas, most of the arguing back then was Christians against Christians, pretty much making the same exact arguments. Likewise, some Christians in the early church protested against the materialism surrounding Christmas, imploring people to essentially “Keep Christ in Christmas.”

Jump to much later in history: by 1500 AD, Christmas celebrations were “solidly entrenched in western European cultures” with much variety and many of the familiar traditions and attitudes we associate with Christmas today, as well as many of the same troublesome excesses.

Yet, over time, Christmas became so marked by drunken chaos that Christmas in some places was all-out banned.

For a period, Christmas became much like St. Patrick’s Day in the U.S. today; the celebration had nothing to do with the holy person it was honoring; it was simply an excuse to act like drunken idiots. This banning of Christmas happened primarily after the Protestant Reformation (1517 AD) when there was no separation of church and state, such as by the Puritans and other Calvinists. No surprise there. The Enlightenment didn’t help either.

Christmas became thought of as a time of debauchery celebrated only by the lower classes. Any notion of holiness or religion vanished for the most part. No one was keeping the “Christ” in Christmas.

But Christmas would survive near-extinction and become the most celebrated holiday of all time that we know today.

Not surprising, this re-branding started in the United States. In the 1800s, a group of New York poets, illustrators, and writers helped make Christmas into what Americans know it as today: a domestic, child-friendly holiday.

One of these writers was Washington Irving, who introduced his readers to Saint Nicholas. In 1821, William Gilley published The Children’s Friend, the first to print a picture of our modern idea of Santa Claus. In 1822, Clement Clarke Moore wrote those famous words, “‘Twas the night before Christmas, when all thro’ the house…”

Around this same time in England, old carols were being rediscovered and new ones were being written. Charles Dickens published A Christmas Carol (one of my all-time favorite stories) in 1843, which “helped turn Victorian Christmas into a crusade against selfishness and greed” and “reunited the English Christmas with Christianity.” Christmas cards were invented in London in that same year. The royal family had a big influence too. Prince Albert, who had a German background, and Queen Victoria modeled Christmas as a family-oriented celebration with Christmas trees and roasted turkey.

Eventually, Christmas wiggled itself back into those stuffy Protestant churches because the common folk wanted it: “Christmas returned to Protestant church life because the rank and file of membership wanted it. It made its way against official opposition in many denominations until there was so many local groups celebrating December twenty-fifth as the birthday of Jesus that opposition was futile and indifference impossible.”

All this conflict has been over the birthday of the Prince of Peace. If nothing else, that should cause us pause. And we didn’t even touch on Santa yet.

NEXT: The History of Santa: Christian Saint or Pagan Satan?

IMG_0734

Who Jesus Ain’t: Learn more HERE.

 

Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood, In Her Own Words: Eliminating the “Feeble-Minded”

margaretsanger12

SERIES INTRO

As most know, Planned Parenthood is a controversial organization because their name is intimately connected with abortion, but known a little less is that Planned Parenthood’s founder, Margaret Sanger (1879-1966) – defended by the organization as a “woman of heroic accomplishments,” – is also a controversial subject.

In these articles, we’ll be letting Margaret speak for herself by looking at two written works by the founder of Planned Parenthood: Women and the New Race (1920) and The Pivot of Civilization (1922).

Though often ignored, it’s no matter of debate that Sanger was a believer and promoter of eugenics, and she lays out her thoughts on the subject in the two works mentioned above. Eugenics is an attempt to move the human race “forward” to a new level through biological and evolutionary means. Sanger’s version of eugenics was to control the reproduction of the “unfit” through birth control.

Where the main ideas of both books are simple enough — birth control is the key to ending the ills of society — we saw clearly by her own words in an earlier article, Sanger wasn’t motivated by only alleviating poverty or promoting women’s rights, but also by who should or shouldn’t be “breeding” according to her eugenic philosophy, as we see plainly in the following quote:

“Birth control itself, often denounced as a violation of natural law, is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defectives.” (WNR P.151)

In fact, after reading her two books, one can argue Sanger’s eugenic philosophy is the driving force of her life’s work, as it is a major theme weaved throughout all the ideas of both books.

READ: Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood, In Her Own Words:

(1) Eugenics, Elimination of the Unfit

(2) On Charity to the Poor

Margaret Sanger

WHO ARE THE “FEEBLE-MINDED”?

Sanger uses the phrase “feeble-minded” regularly in her books, placing the feeble-minded in with those she calls the “unfit” to pass on their genes. She is plainly speaking of people with cognitive disabilities and impaired mental capacity, such as those with Down Syndrome. She states,

“Mental defect and feeble-mindedness are conceived essentially as retardation, arrest of development, differing in degree so that the victim is either an idiot, an imbecile, feeble-minded or a moron, according to the relative period at which mental development ceases.” (PC Loc 1880)

Yet, the reader is left unsure if she would consider anyone with a low IQ as being part of the feeble-mined unfit, as it seems she may.

Sanger’s ideas lead to an obvious moral dilemma: Who decides who is smart enough to reproduce? Where is the line drawn to say, “Anyone under this level of intelligence is unfit to breed”?

ONCE AGAIN, IT’S ALL ABOUT EUGENICS

Chapter IV of The Pivot of Civilization is actually titled “The Fertility of the Feeble-Minded,” where she speaks of “the menace of feeble-mindedness to the race” (PC Loc 778). (To be clear, when Sanger speaks of “race” she is usually speaking of the human race.)

She starts the chapter this way:

“There is but one practical and feasible program in handling the great problem of the feeble-minded. That is, as the best authorities are agreed, to prevent the birth of those who would transmit imbecility to their descendants.” (PC Loc 705)

After stating that the fertility of the feeble-mined are “abnormally high,” she states, “Modern conditions of civilization, as we are continually being reminded, furnish the most favorable breeding- ground for the mental defective, the moron, the imbecile” (PC Loc 707).

To support this idea, she goes on to quote someone named Davenport who refers to the feeble-minded as “members of a weak strain,” which modern governmental systems not only allow, but assist in reproducing. The quote ends as follows: “… so the stupid work goes on of preserving and increasing our socially unfit strains” (PC Loc 711).

Sanger is not just an advocate of government-enforced control denying the “feeble-minded” and others she deems “unfit” from reproducing, but also of denying the “unfit” a political voice.

She quotes Dr. Walter E. Fernald to support her view: “…We now have state commissions for controlling the gipsy-moth and the boll weevil, the foot-and-mouth disease, and for protecting the shell-fish and wild game, but we have no commission which even attempts to modify or to control the vast moral and economic forces represented by the feeble-minded persons at large in the community.” (PC Loc 728)

“Equality of political power has thus been bestowed upon the lowest elements of our population. We must not be surprised, therefore, at the spectacle of political scandal and graft, of the notorious and universally ridiculed low level of intelligence and flagrant stupidity exhibited by our legislative bodies.” (PC Loc 1452)

As you’ll see in the last two quotes below, denial of a political voice in a democratic system isn’t the worst idea Sanger supports when it comes to the “unfit.”

women&newrace

IN HER OWN WORDS

With that, I’ll allow Sanger to continue to speak for herself…

“Only 34,137 of these unfortunates [feebleminded and other defectives] were under institutional care in the United States in 1916, the rest being free to propagate their kind – piling up public burdens for future generations. The feebleminded are notoriously prolific in reproduction. The close relationship between poverty and ignorance and the production of feebleminded is shown by Anne Moore, Ph.D., in a report to the Public Education Association of New York in 1911. She found that children in New York schools came from large families living in overcrowded slum conditions, and that only a small percentage were born of native parents.” (WNR P.31)

“Modern studies indicate that insanity, epilepsy, criminality, prostitution, pauperism, and mental defect, are all organically bound up together and that the least intelligent and the thoroughly degenerate classes in every community are the most prolific… there is truly, as some of the scientific eugenists have pointed out, a feeble-minded peril to future generations— unless the feeble-minded are prevented from reproducing their kind.” (PC Loc 719)

She quotes Dr. Tredgold, who says feeble-minded women “constitute a permanent menace to the race…” (PC Loc 755).

Sanger’s attention turns to the idea of the “so-called ‘good'” or harmless feeble-minded (PC Loc 778). Her response to this idea follows: “In such a reckless and thoughtless differentiation between the “bad” and the “good” feeble-minded, we find new evidence of the conventional middle-class bias that also finds expression among some of the eugenists. We do not object to feeble-mindedness simply because it leads to immorality and criminality; nor can we approve of it when it expresses itself in docility, submissiveness and obedience. We object because both are burdens and dangers to the intelligence of the community. As a matter of fact, there is sufficient evidence to lead us to believe that the so-called “borderline cases” are a greater menace than the out-and-out “defective delinquents” who can be supervised, controlled and prevented from procreating their kind.” (PC Loc 782).

“The presence in the public schools of the mentally defective children of men and women who should never have been parents is a problem that is becoming more and more difficult, and is one of the chief reasons for lower educational standards.” (PC Loc 791)

“The emergency problem of segregation and sterilization must be faced immediately. Every feeble-minded girl or woman of the hereditary type, especially of the moron class, should be segregated during the reproductive period. Otherwise, she is almost certain to bear imbecile children, who in turn are just as certain to breed other defectives.” (PC Loc 863)

“… we prefer the policy of immediate sterilization, of making sure that parenthood is absolutely prohibited to the feeble-minded.” (PC Loc 867)

Yes, you read those last two quotes correctly; Sanger favored forced segregation and sterilization of “[e]very feeble-minded girl” and every women who might pass on “feeble-mindedness” to their children. It’s interesting to note she proposes this for those “especially of the moron class;” one wonders what class of people this is referring to. If one reads her books, it’s not too hard to figure out.

For further insight and more quotes from Sanger herself, see our other articles: Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood, In Her Own Words:

(1) Eugenics, Elimination of the Unfit

(2) On Charity to the Poor

Sources:

WNR = Women and the New Race, Margaret Sanger (Figgy Tree Publishers, 2016). Originally published in 1920.

PC = The Pivot of Civilization, Margaret Sanger (A Public Domain Book. Kindle Edition.) Originally published in 1922.
unnamed

Want to partner with me as I defend the faith and give a reason for the hope of Christ to college students at Rutgers University? Learn more by clicking here.

Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood, In Her Own Words: On Charity to the Poor

Sanger-Pivotof Civil

SERIES INTRO

As most know, Planned Parenthood is a controversial organization because their name is intimately connected with abortion, but known a little less is that Planned Parenthood’s founder, Margaret Sanger (1879-1966) – defended by the organization as a “woman of heroic accomplishments,” – is also a controversial subject.

In this series, we’ll be letting Margaret speak for herself by looking at two written works by the founder of Planned Parenthood: Women and the New Race (1920) and The Pivot of Civilization (1922).

Though often ignored, it’s no matter of debate that Sanger was a believer and promoter of eugenics, and she lays out her thoughts on the subject in the two works mentioned above. Eugenics is an attempt to move the human race “forward” to a new level through biological and evolutionary means. Sanger’s version of eugenics was to control the reproduction of the “unfit” through birth control.

Where the main ideas of both books are simple enough: Birth control is the key to ending the ills of society, we saw plainly by her own words in the following article, Sanger wasn’t motivated by only alleviating poverty or promoting women’s rights, but also by who should or shouldn’t be “breeding” according to her eugenic philosophy.

Champion of the Poor?

What is striking is Sanger both appears to be concerned for the welfare of the poor while at the same time portraying the poor as a subhuman burden hampering the progress of the human race.

For example, in The Pivot of Civilization she speaks of how high fertility and, thus, high infant mortality is a characteristic of the poor. One may be under the impression that concern for the welfare of the poor may be her main motivation until she lumps the high fertility of the poor with “other anti-social factors detrimental to individual, national and racial welfare” (Loc 446). (To be clear, when Sanger uses terms like “racial welfare,” she is usually speaking of the human race.)

Sanger immediately continues, “The statistics which show that the greatest number of children are born to parents whose earnings are the lowest, that the direst poverty is associated with uncontrolled fecundity [the ability to produce an abundance of offspring] emphasize the character of the parenthood we are depending upon to create the race of the future” (Loc 446). In other words, keeping with her eugenic values, Sanger is saying that the future of the human race is in the hands of the poor because they produce the most children.

Sanger continues, “A distinguished American opponent of Birth Control some years ago spoke of the ‘racial’ value of this high infant mortality rate among the ‘unfit.’ He forgot, however, that the survival-rate of the children born of these overworked and fatigued mothers may nevertheless be large enough, aided and abetted by philanthropies and charities, to form the greater part of the population of to-morrow. As Dr. Karl Pearson has stated: ‘Degenerate stocks under present social conditions are not short-lived; they live to have more than the normal size of family'” (Loc 452).

Here, Sanger quotes another eugenist who apparently claimed the high infant morality rate of the poor (the “unfit”) would benefit the progress of the human race, but Sanger goes on to correct him that the survival rate of poor children is still considerable. Thus, she quotes Dr. Karl Pearson (who refers to the poor as “Degenerate stocks”) to back up what she says.

Furthermore, Sanger blames the survival of poor children on people and charities that help the poor. Look at it again:

“He forgot, however, that the survival-rate of the children born of these overworked and fatigued mothers may nevertheless be large enough, aided and abetted by philanthropies and charities, to form the greater part of the population of to-morrow.” (Loc 452)

Throughout The Pivot of Civilization, Sanger criticizes those who help the poor through charity instead of subscribing to her eugenic beliefs of controlling the poor’s reproduction through birth control.

For instance, in Chapter IV, Sanger names “Philanthropy and Charity” (Loc 875) as one of three things “which have resulted in biological chaos and human waste.” (Loc 881)

In fact, Chapter V is actually titled “The Cruelty of Charity” (Loc 915). Ironic to the current political climate of the U.S., the main argument would make many right-wing conservatives glow and the politically liberal-minded cringe, as it echoes current arguments against systematized welfare. The following quote does a good job of summing it up:

“Organized charity itself is the symptom of a malignant social disease. Those vast, complex, interrelated organizations aiming to control and to diminish the spread of misery and destitution and all the menacing evils that spring out of this sinisterly fertile soil, are the surest sign that our civilization has bred, is breeding and is perpetuating constantly increasing numbers of defectives, delinquents and dependents. My criticism, therefore, is not directed at the “failure” of philanthropy, but rather at its success” (Loc 920). 

With that, I’ll be silent and continue to let Sanger speak for herself…

Birth Control Review, November, 1923.

Birth Control Review, November, 1923.

In Her Own Words: On Charity

“They tacitly assume that all parenthood is desirable, that all children should be born, and that infant mortality can be controlled by external aid.” (Loc 467)

“the politicians are at one with the traditions of a civilization which, with its charities and philanthropies, has propped up the defective and degenerate and relieved them of the burdens borne by the healthy sections of the community, thus enabling them more easily and more numerously to propagate their kind.” (Loc 723)

“Organized charity itself is the symptom of a malignant social disease.” (Loc 920)

“When we learn further that the total number of inmates in public and private institutions in the State of New York—in alms-houses, reformatories, schools for the blind, deaf and mute, in insane asylums, in homes for the feeble-minded and epileptic—amounts practically to less than sixty-five thousand, an insignificant number compared to the total population, our eyes should be opened to the terrific cost to the community of this dead weight of human waste.” (Loc 953)

“Funds that should be used to raise the standard of our civilization are diverted to the maintenance of those who should never have been born.” (Loc 2224)

SourceThe Pivot of Civilization, Margaret Sanger (A Public Domain Book. Kindle Edition.) Originally published in 1922.

READ: Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood, In Her Own Words: Eugenics, Elimination of the Unfit

unnamed

Want to support me as I defend the faith and give a reason for the hope of Christ to college students at Rutgers University? Learn more by clicking here.