Halloween's just one of those times of celebration that everyone can get behind. It's festive and orangish, filled to the brim with snacks, sweets, pumpkins, and the queen-topper of them all, COSTUMES!!! Take a little Christmas spirit, a dash of thankfulness, a touch of good ol' American liberty, a sprinkle of Valentine's romance, and the unrelenting fun of Arbor Day and WHAZZAMMO! You got yerself a Halloween happenin'. Below are photosnaps from the last three parties I've hosted and a number of carved pumpkins. This year promises to be a banner year with more fun, more costumes, more people, more extravagance, more pumpkins, and best of all, more of that unrelenting Arbor-fun. Below, I've also incuded a reprinted article by myself on the nature of holidays - perfect for distributing to naysayers.

Halloween 2ooo	Halloween 2oo1
Halloween 2oo2	Halloween 2oo3
Halloween 2oo5	The Carved Pumpkin pronounced CAHR-ved
Party Flyers An Evolution

Originally published on 19 February 2oo3
"Lookie Pa! Thar' be legalism in them thar' hills!"

One of DYL's newest writers, though fiery and in possession of something close to a sense of humour, demonstrates a marked misunderstanding of holidays, the importance of their respective origins, and the responsible Christian's response to such festivities. Though I've spoken of the real meaning of holidays in the past, it has been awhile, so let's treat it again.

I'll deal successively with three things: what exactly a holiday is, the origin and meaning of holidays (in general and specifics), and lastly, what responsibility a believer owes in their respect.

1). The question of defining a holiday may prove valuable down the line, so I'll take care of that here. Despite its obvious etymology, a holiday is, in fact, not a holy day or something necessarily faith-driven. A holiday, distilled, is simply nothing more nor less than a celebratory event. The celebratory event may have religious connotations (as Passover or the National Day of Prayer) or it may be devoid of such entirely (as Arbor Day or Memorial Day) or it may be something of a mixed breed (as Christmas or Easter), but regardless, religious connotations are never to be viewed as intrinsic to holiday.

2). I have dealt with this in the past but reiteration may serve. In these matters, the origin of a thing bears no necessary moral resemblance to its current state. This should seem obvious, but perhaps a few examples will clarify this.

First from good to bad. The Mosaic Covenant was good according to its intended purpose and origin, yet fifteen hundred years later, Paul chastizes those who have turned it to villainy, calling them "dogs" and "mutilators." Sexuality was, from its origin, a good thing, yet mankind never ceases to make it into something vile. Mankind itself finds genesis in purity - so far that God even declares the race "very good," yet now mankind is wicked and iniquitous, even from birth. So, something can begin as good and find its present state as something bad.

Now from bad to good. Joseph's brothers, engorged upon their jealousy throw him in a pit to die and then relent, selling him into a life of hardship and suffering, yet what they intended for evil, God intended (and indeed worked) for good. Mankind, birthed in rebellion and iniquity is corrupted through and through, but God through grace redeems the occasional man and makes him a vessel of honour and glory. So, clearly, something can begin as evil and be made good in a later state.

So then, when we approach the question of whether a holiday is something good, bad, or ugly, we must recognize that the celebration's origin bears no necessary relevance upon the question. To further exemplify this point, I will borrow from an old post in which I discuss the "real" meaning of holidays.

The fact is this: nobody (this is hyperbole meaning "an extreme few") celebrates a holiday for the reason the holiday existed originally. I don't know a single person, Christian or non, who actually celebrates solstice. Even the unbeliever's I know who celebrate Christmas aren't honouring pagan fertility goddesses, but simply being festive and enjoying family, friends, or whatever.

I think i should point out that there is a big diffenece between syncretism (co-opting the religious beliefs of another culture and kludging them slipshod into one's own faith beliefs) and the celebration of non-religious things in a clean conscience. Now if I were taking the pagan fertility superstions of Easter and melding them into my resurrection beliefs, drawing me to belief that the power of Christ's resurrection translates into the gift of supersperm for all who believe and that in celebrating on that day I am granted the ability to fruitly and assuredly multiply, that would be syncretism. Celebrating the Lord's conquer of the grave and letting my wife wear a pretty bonnet while we munch on tasty hard-boiled eggs is a far, far cry from syncretism and the heavy burden of proof lies upon the shoulders of he who who seek to prove it such.

I might also point out that Paul doesn't seem particularly worried about this sort of thing. Going far beyond the vaguely-and-in-fact-not-really-connected-at-all-to-pagan-religion issue of celebrating on formerly pagan holidays, he dives straight into the deep end of the pagan pool declaring that for the believer, even the enjoyment of meats sacrificed blatantly to idols is not a corruption (only admonishing believers to abstain in the witness of believers of weak faith). If believers are given liberty to enjoy that which comes directly from pagan ritual, it seems an unscriptural legality to yoke believers with a command to abstain from that which comes via an incredibly inderect root from pagan idolatry. Again, the heavy burden of proof lies at the feet of he who would say otherwise.

Lastly in this section, even granting that origins mattered, the opinion that believers shouldn't celebrate once-pagan holidays is on shakey ground for the simply fact that the origin of the original celebrations are good things. If celebrating on Easter is wrong because its original celebrants honoured pagan fertility rites on the day, then Easter is right because it was pagans who altered something good, new life, and glorified it in fouled order. Therefore, someone needs only celebrate new life properly to have redeemed the celebration. Pretty fun stuff, no?

3). So then, what responsibility does the believe owe in light of these holidays? Why none at all, so long as he is honouring the Lord. There is no Scriptural mandate regarding holidays and to suggest that celebration of holidays (in and of themselves) is wrong is to embrace the sizable flaw of Fundementalism. Such legalism as Fundementalism loaded onto Christianity is a tragic shortcoming in understanding the position of the believer in Christ.

How does the believer know from right and wrong? Through the revealed will of God in the Canon of Scripture. Has Scripture stated directly or indirectly that festivities on days (even those once associated with pagan worship) are a mark of iniquity? No. It has not. Therefore, such is a matter of conscience. Do not celebrate if you feel bound not to, but neither hold your brother to your decision of conscience.

I'm sure there's more to say, but frankly, I'm spent.

6:58 AM 9 comments