Question of the Week

[HisDaughter]

Question: "Should Christians celebrate Halloween?"

Answer: We recognize that this can be a very controversial topic. Some Christians view Halloween simply as a day to dress up in a costume and have fun. Other Christians regard Halloween as a satanic holiday designed to worship evil spirits and promote darkness and wickedness. So, who is right? Is it possible for Christians to participate in Halloween without compromising their faith?

Halloween, no matter how commercialized, has almost completely pagan origins. As innocent as it may seem to some, it is not something to be taken lightly. Christians tend to have various ways to celebrate or not to celebrate Halloween. For some, it means having an “alternative” Harvest Party. For others, it is staying away from the ghosts, witches, goblins, etc., and wearing less evil or pagan costumes, e.g., little princesses, clowns, cowboys, super-heroes, etc. Some choose not to do anything, electing to lock themselves in the house with the lights off. With your freedom as a Christian, you are at liberty to decide how you react.

Scripture does not directly speak at all about Halloween, but it does give us some principles on which we can make a decision. In Old Testament Israel, witchcraft was a crime punishable by death (Exodus 22:18, Leviticus 19:31; 20:6, 27). The New Testament teaching about the occult is clear. Acts 8:9-24, the story of Simon, shows that occultism and Christianity don't mix. The account of Elymas the sorcerer in Acts 13:6-11 reveals that sorcery is violently opposed to Christianity. Paul called him a child of the devil, an enemy of righteousness and perverter of the ways of God. In Acts 16, at Philippi, a fortune-telling girl lost her demon powers when the evil spirit was cast out by Paul. The interesting matter here is that Paul refused to allow even good statements to come from a demon-influenced person. Acts 19 shows new converts who have abruptly broken with their former occultism by confessing, showing their evil deeds, bringing their magic paraphernalia, and burning it before everyone (Acts 19:19).

So, should a Christian celebrate Halloween? Is there anything evil about a Christian dressing up as a princess or cowboy and going around the block asking for candy? No, there is not. Are there things about Halloween that are anti-Christian and should be avoided? Absolutely! Parents, if you are going to allow your children to participate in Halloween, make sure you keep them from getting involved in the darker aspects of the day. If Christians are going to take part in Halloween, their attitude, dress, and most importantly, their behavior, should still reflect a redeemed life (Philippians 1:27). There are many churches who hold "harvest festivals" and incorporate costumes, but in a godly environment. There are many Christians who hand out tracts that share the Gospel along with the Halloween candy. The decision is ultimately yours to make. God's view on the subject is clear: "Be Holy, as I am Holy" (1 Peter 1:16). "God is light and in Him is no darkness at all" (1 John 1:5b).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am putting this question down here this week because I'd like to hear your comments on this subject.  I think almost everyone has an opinion on the pros and cons, the good and evil, to be or not to be of celebrating Halloween, so what say you?.....

[David_james]

I say avoid it completely. No dressing up, no going out. You can buy candy for you kids and maybe a party but nothing else. Candy wrappers can't have Halloween related stuff on it.

[Shammu]

Our Pilgrim forefathers knew well of Halloween's occult roots. In fact they banned celebrating Halloween in America. Halloween was not celebrated in this country until 1845. At that time multiplied thousands of Irish emigrants flooded into New York because of the Irish Potato Famine of 1845-46. They brought with them an old Druid Holiday we call Halloween. Gradually celebrating this day spread throughout the rest of the country.

We must stay away from other practices associated with Halloween, the eve of the Celtic New Year festival. The Druid priests used to instruct their faithful to extinguish their hearth fires and lights and to gather around the fire of sacrifice to make their offerings and to pay homage to the Lord of Death. This sacred fire was the fire of the new year, to be taken home to rekindle lights and hearth fires. The sacred New Year=s fire developed into the practice of the Jack O= Lantern (in the U.S.A.; a pumpkin, in older days other vegetables were used), which was carved in imitation of the dead and used to convey the new light and fire to the home, where the lantern was left burning throughout the night. Even the use and display of the Jack O Lantern honors the Samhain, the Celtic god of death. Orthodox Christians cannot share in this Celtic activity, but must counter the secular customs by instead burning candles to the Savior, the Most Holy Mother of God, and to all the Holy Saints. They were idolaters, occult practitioners and witches of sorts. Let’s begin with the information found in the 11th edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica.

Suffice it to say, at this point that the pagan worship day Samhain evolved into Halloween. But what of their Lord of Death? You probably have seen a modern day version of SAMAN without even knowing it. This pagan god was shown as a ghostly, skeleton holding a sickle in his hand. He later came to be known as THE GRIM REAPER.

Paganism, idolatry and Satan worship. How then did things so contradictory to the Faith gain acceptance among Christian people? The answers are spiritual apathy and listlessness, which are the spiritual roots of atheism and turning away from God. In society today, one is urged to disregard the spiritual roots and origins of secular practices when the outward practices or forms seem ordinary, entertaining, and harmless. The dogma of atheism underlies many of these practices and forms, denying the existence of both God and Satan. Practices and forms of obvious pagan and idolatrous origin are neither harmless nor of little consequence. The Holy Church stand against them because we are taught by Christ that God stands in judgment over everything we do and believe, and that our actions are either for God or against God. Therefore, the customs of Halloween are not innocent, but are demonic, precisely as their origins prove.

There are evil spirits, devils do exist. Christians must see that our greatest foe is the Evil One satan who inspires nations and individuals to sin, and who keeps them from coming to the truth. Until we know that satan is our real enemy, we can make little spiritual progress.

Ephesians 6:12  For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the world rulers of the darkness of this age, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.

Deuteronomy 12:31 Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God: for every abomination to the LORD, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods.

Leviticus 18:21 And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD.

There is absolutely no doubt that Samhain, Halloween, was a wicked pagan worship day. It is little wonder that even today Halloween’s focus is still on horror, mutilation, death, evil and the occult seeing that it is rooted in Baal worship! But, I come in contact with people regularly who protest, "That may have been true in the past, but that is not true today."

From about October 1st until October 31st, witches, vampires, Satanists and other occult minions can be seen and heard on TV and radio talk shows. There will be special features on witchcraft. Newspapers and magazines with be packed with occult related articles. Americans have been receptive to this over the years. But, what happens? That brings me to my next point. Children and even adults are conditioned to be receptive to occult doctrines and practices and are desensitized by the violence and death associated with it’s celebration.

Halloween is desensitizing our children by its glorification of violence, death, mutilation and gore. Standard television and video viewing fare this Halloween will be slasher/horror movies like Dracula, Scream, "Nightmare on Elm Street", "Halloween", and "Friday the 13th" film series and others. Jeffery Dahmer’s favorite was the Exorsist II.

He "watched this movie on almost a weekly basis, for approximately six months, and sometimes 2 and 3 times a week. He identified with the main character in the movie because he appeared to be driven by evil. Tracy Edwards (one who escaped from Dahmer) testified that Dahmer forced him to watch this video. He said that Dahmer identified with the possessed former preacher and he wanted to be demonized. Edwards went on to say that Dahmer began to chant, rocking back and forth. While he did this, it seemed like he was not even there."

Are you wondering why I am bringing Dahmer into this picture? I’ll tell you why. Many of the horror/slasher pictures are inspired by incidents like the Dahmer case and Dahmer was inspired by a demonic horror picture. I should say, that this is not just my "wild speculation." Consider actor (and I use the term loosely) Robert Englund. He portrayed razor fingered, mass murderer Freddy Krueger in the "Nightmare on Elm Street" series. Where do you suppose he got his inspiration to play his part? He drew his inspiration from the late Ted Bundy, who raped, brutalized, mutilated and murdered more than 28 women. Englund told Slaughterhouse magazine, "I just read an article on Ted Bundy, so a lot of my imagery is based on him."

I don't believe children should be exposed to such manufactured traumas. Why? Because exposing a vulnerable child can have harmful consequences that run the spectrum from nightmares to emotional damage. In fact, Dr. Grace Ketterman, M.D. says in her book, You and Your Child's Problems:

A tragic by-product of fear in the lives of children as early as preadolescence is the interest and involvement in supernatural occult phenomena.

1 John 4:18 "There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love."

My final reason that Halloween is harmful is because…

It provides the opportunity to experiment with the occult to see if it works and an excuse to do evil

Many who are curious about the occult experiment with occult rituals and practices at Halloween. Some of those who were "just playing around" get hooked. Ouija boards, seances, casting spells and small animal sacrifices are among the most common avenues of experimentation.

Others cannot wait for Halloween. They believe it is the most powerful occult day of the year. Jack Roper, occult researcher with C.A.R.I.S. (Christian Apologetic: Research & Information Service) says "...the time of the year where you have the highest rate of satanic ritual crimes is Halloween." He went on to say, "Around Halloween, one of the things you see is graveyard desecration." Self-styled Satanists use human bones in their rituals. Graveyard vandalism is a common occurrence at Halloween.

[Soldier4Christ]

There are many different stories about how Halloween got it's start here in the U.S. Halloween is a pagan holiday but not all of it's roots came from just one place. The U.S. is a melting pot of people from all sorts of nations and different customs. As a result even Halloween is a conglomeration that comes from a bit of all of them. One example is the story of Sleepy Hollow that has become a large part of Halloween. It was first published in 1820 even before the large Irish immigration. It was based on a verbal story that Washington Irving got from schoolteacher named Jesse Merwin.

Witches actually originated with the Babylonian's around 2000BC not with the Druids and it was not the Druids that brought this to America but rather the settlers in 1692 at Salem, Massachusetts. All Saints Day sometimes called All Hallows Day was supposedly originated as early as 43AD which incorporated numerous pagan holidays with a Christian celebration by Pope Gregory III. This celebration was brought to the U.S. by the Catholics prior to 1775.

The door-to-door practice did not come from the Druids either. It was from a practice at a much later date that depicted the poor going door-to-door begging for food and wasn't originally done at Halloween but closer to the time of Thanksgiving. It was called "souling" when poor folk would go door to door, receiving food in return for promises of prayers for the dead.

The use of a pumpkin at Halloween is said by some to come from the Druids when it actually was imported to Europe from America much later after the Druids disappeared from Europe. The most likely origin of the practice was an imitation of the old moralistic folk story of Jack, the conniving drunk who tricks the devil into rejecting his soul and is forced to wander endlessly, not welcome in heaven or hell. The "jack o lantern" is the hollowed turnip he carries as a lamp, with a lump of hell's coal lighting his path as he wanders eternally.

I could continue on but it is easily seen that Halloween is a conglomeration of many different beliefs and celebrations by both pagans and various religious beliefs and we can clearly see that it is primarily a pagan celebration in what it has become today and is not something that we as Christians should participate in.

[HisDaughter]

I say avoid it completely. No dressing up, no going out. You can buy candy for you kids and maybe a party but nothing else. Candy wrappers can't have Halloween related stuff on it.

I just love the simplicity of Brother David's answer!  And I thank you all for the great information you gave too!  I have read a lot of Christian books on the occult and know that it is their favorite and most active holiday of the year.  Satanists still do human sacrafices and terribly abuse children all in the name of their god.  I have taken my grandson to church activities on Halloween, but I prefer to spend it at home praying that God will divert, interrupt, and thwart any satanic activity that night and protect the children from any evil.
Thank you to all that were brave enough to reply.

[Soldier4Christ]

Other than how it got started there really is much to debate on this subject. It is indeed an evil celebration. That much all Christians should be unified on. The day itself is not evil as all days belong to God, just the celebration itself.

Yes, I like David's simple explanation also. My local church here doesn't celebrate it but they do have a get together for the kids on those days. There is no "dressing up" nor Halloween decorations. They hold a short age appropriate sermon as they have several groups according to age up through teens, have some things to eat including a few candies that are mostly homemade and some games for them to play.

As a teen I went to a church that held a hayrack ride with either a hotdog roast or a chili cookout on an open bonfire. Those of us with horses would ride them along with the hayrack. It was nothing to do with Halloween but gave the kids something to do to keep them from wanting to be in the Halloween celebrations.

[HisDaughter]

I think this is another one for the "debate" section.....What say you?

Question: "Women pastors / preachers? What does the Bible say about women in ministry?"

Answer: There is perhaps not a more debated issue in the church today than the issue of women serving as pastors / preachers in ministry. As a result, it is very important to not view this issue as men versus women. There are women who believe that women should not serve as pastors and that the Bible places restrictions on the ministry of women - and there are men who believe that women can serve as preachers and that there are no restrictions on women in ministry. This is not an issue of chauvinism or discrimination. It is an issue of Biblical interpretation.

1 Timothy 2:11-12 proclaims, “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” In the church, God assigns different roles to men and women. This is a result of the way mankind was created (1 Timothy 2:13) and the way in which sin entered the world (2 Timothy 2:14). God, through the Apostle Paul’s writing, restricts women from serving in roles of spiritual teaching authority over men. This precludes women from serving as pastors, which definitely includes preaching to, teaching, and having spiritual authority over men.

There are many "objections" to this view of women in ministry / women pastors. A common one is that Paul restricts women from teaching because in the first century, women were typically uneducated. However, 1 Timothy 2:11-14 nowhere mentions educational status. If education was a qualification for ministry, the majority of Jesus' disciples likely would not have been qualified. A second common objection is that Paul only restricted the Ephesian women from teaching (1 Timothy was written to Timothy, who was the pastor of the church in Ephesus). The city of Ephesus was known for its temple to Artemis, a false Greek / Roman goddess. Women were the authority in the worship of Artemis. However, the book of 1 Timothy nowhere mentions Artemis, nor does Paul mention Artemis worship as a reason for the restrictions in 1 Timothy 2:11-12.

A third common objection is that Paul is only referring to husbands and wives, not men and women in general. The Greek words in 1 Timothy 2:11-14 could refer to husbands and wives. However, the basic meaning of the words are men and women. Further, the same Greek words are used in verses 8-10. Are only husbands to lift up holy hands in prayer without anger and disputing (verse 8- Are only wives to dress modestly, have good deeds, and worship God (verses 9-10)? Of course not. Verses 8-10 clearly refer to men and women in general, not only husbands and wives. There is nothing in the context that would indicate a switch to husbands and wives in verses 11-14.

Yet another frequent objection to this interpretation of women pastors / preachers is in relation to Miriam, Deborah, Huldah, Priscilla, Phoebe, etc. - women who held positions of leadership in the Bible. This objection fails to note some significant factors. In relation to Deborah, she was the only female judge amongst 13 male judges. In relation to Huldah, she was the only female prophet amongst dozens of male prophets mentioned in the Bible. Miriam's only connection to leadership was due to her being the sister of Moses and Aaron. The two most prominent women in the times of the Kings were Athaliah and Jezebel - hardly examples of godly female leadership.

In the Book of Acts, chapter 18, Priscilla and Aquila are presented as faithful ministers for Christ. Priscilla's name is mentioned first, likely indicating that she was more "prominent" in ministry than her husband. However, Priscilla is nowhere described as participating in a ministry activity that is in contradiction to 1 Timothy 2:11-14. Priscilla and Aquila brought Apollos into their home and they both discipled him, explaining the Word of God to him more accurately (Acts 18:26).

In Romans 16:1, even if Phoebe is considered a "deaconess" instead of a "servant" - that does not indicate that Phoebe was a teacher in the church. "Able to teach" is given as a qualification for elders, but not deacons (1 Timothy 3:1-13; Titus 1:6-9). Elders / bishops / deacons are described as "husband of one wife," "a man whose children believe," and "men worthy of respect." In addition, in 1 Timothy 3:1-13 and Titus 1:6-9, masculine pronouns are used exclusively to refer to elders / bishops / deacons.

The structure of 1 Timothy 2:11-14 makes the "reason" perfectly clear. Verse 13 begins with "for" and gives the "cause" of what Paul stated in verses 11-12. Why should women not teach or have authority over men? Because - "Adam was created first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived." That is the reason. God created Adam first and then created Eve to be a "helper" for Adam. This order of Creation has universal application to humanity in the family (Ephesians 5:22-33) and the church. The fact that Eve was deceived is also given as a reason for women not serving as pastors or having spiritual authority over men. This leads some to believe that women should not teach because they are more easily deceived. That concept is debatable...but if women are more easily deceived, why should they be allowed to teach children (who are easily deceived) and other women (who are supposedly more easily deceived)? That is not what the text says. Women are not to teach or have spiritual authority over men because Eve was deceived. As a result, God has given men the primary teaching authority in the church.

Women excel in gifts of hospitality, mercy, teaching and helps. Much of the ministry of the church depends on women. Women in the church are not restricted to public praying or prophesying (1 Corinthians 11:5), only to having spiritual teaching authority over men. The Bible nowhere restricts women from exercising the gifts of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians chapter 12). Women, just as much as men, are called to minister to others, to demonstrate the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23), and to proclaim the Gospel to the lost (Matthew 28:18-20; Acts 1:8; 1 Peter 3:15).

God has ordained that only men are to serve in positions of spiritual teaching authority in the church. This is not because men are necessarily better teachers, or because women are inferior or less intelligent (which is not the case). It is simply the way God designed the church to function. Men are to set the example in spiritual leadership – in their lives and through their words. Women are to take a less authoritative role. Women are encouraged to teach other women (Titus 2:3-5). The Bible also does not restrict women from teaching children. The only activity women are restricted from is teaching or having spiritual authority over men. This logically would include women serving as pastors / preachers. This does not make women less important, by any means, but rather gives them a ministry focus more in agreement with how God has gifted them.

[HisDaughter]

Looks like this might be one that no one wants to touch with a 10 foot pole.  I know.....lets get Mikey!  Otherwise known as Grammyluv in this instance.

I happen to agree with this article.  I have never been comfortable with women being Pastors.  I've read my Bible and I believe that it's the UNCHANGING word of God.  If He meant something different or made exceptions, He would've made it clear.  I have been to churches where women were the Pastor and one of my good "girl"friends is ordained.  I still don't agree with it.
I also don't agree with the Pastor's wife being called the "First Lady".  I feel that is self-elevation for pride's sake.  My Bible says that we are "joint" heirs with Christ.  It also says that the first shall be last and the last shall be first.

So there you have my 2 cents worth.  Anybody else got an opinion?

In Christ,
Yvette

[Soldier4Christ]

Anybody else got an opinion?

I've always got an opinion.   

















 

[Soldier4Christ]

God set things in a certain order and it is that order that He wants it to be. This is not because the woman is less than a man but rather that things are kept in that certain order. Just as you said we are all joint heirs, therefore one is not above another. Even when it is a man that is a pastor, he still is not above any others. As it is said many times by many ... God is not the author of confusion. He has given us all positions and scripture is quite clear on this.

[HisDaughter]

I've always got an opinion.  

Ummm.....you remind me of somebody.......
Oh yeah!  ME!

[David_james]

You guys have to admit that, unless someone does serious Bible study, the Bible does imply that women are merely helpers and of lower class.

It does seem that women are only named if they are carrying a child of great importance.

[Soldier4Christ]

You guys have to admit that, unless someone does serious Bible study, the Bible does imply that women are merely helpers and of lower class.

It does seem that women are only named if they are carrying a child of great importance.

That might apply to someone that has never read a Bible or ever attended a church service. Next to Mary mother of Jesus and Eve the most preached on women is Ruth and Esther which even have their own books. Esther is mentioned 53 times in her own book and once is prophesied about in Isaiah. Sarah, the wife of Abraham, is mentioned 58 times. There were a number of women that were of great importance throughout the bible. Without women the gospel would not have been spread so quickly and easily. We can see the importance of women throughout the Bible and it doesn't take a whole lot studying to see it. All one needs to do is read the Bible instead of listening to those that attempt to denigrate it.

[David_james]

I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree.

While I know women are equal, I feel that without someone seriously studying the Bible, they will get the wrong impression

[HisDaughter]

Question: "What is the gift of speaking in tongues?"

Answer: The first occurrence of speaking in tongues occurred on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2:1-4. The apostles went out and shared the Gospel with the crowds, speaking to them in their own languages, “we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!" (Acts 2:11). The Greek word translated "tongues" literally means "languages." Therefore, the gift of tongues is speaking in a language a person does not know in order to minister to someone who does speak that language. In 1 Corinthians chapters 12-14, where Paul discusses miraculous gifts, he comments that, “Now, brothers, if I come to you and speak in tongues, what good will I be to you, unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or word of instruction?" (1 Corinthians 14:6). According to the Apostle Paul, and in agreement with the tongues described in Acts, speaking in tongues is valuable to the one hearing God’s message in his/her own language, but it is useless to everyone else – unless it is interpreted / translated.

A person with the gift of interpreting tongues (1 Corinthians 12:30) could understand what a tongues-speaker was saying even though he/she did not know the language that was being spoken. The tongues-interpreter would then communicate the message of the tongues-speaker to everyone else, so all could understand. “For this reason anyone who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret what he says” (1 Corinthians 14:13). Paul’s conclusion regarding un-interpreted tongues is powerful, “But in the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue" (1 Corinthians 14:19).

Is the gift of tongues for today? 1 Corinthians 13:8 mentions the gift of tongues ceasing, although it connects the ceasing with the arrival of the "perfect" in 1 Corinthians 13:10. Some point to a difference in the language in prophecy and knowledge "ceasing" with tongues "being ceased" as evidence for tongues ceasing before the arrival of the "perfect." While possible, this is not explicitly clear from the text. Some also point to passages such as Isaiah 28:11 and Joel 2:28-29 as evidence that speaking in tongues was a sign of God's oncoming judgment. 1 Corinthians 14:22 describes tongues as a "sign to unbelievers." According to this argument, the gift of tongues was a warning to the Jews that God was going to judge Israel for rejecting Jesus Christ as Messiah. Therefore, when God did in fact judge Israel (with the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in A.D. 70), the gift of tongues would no longer serve its intended purpose. While this view is possible, the primary purpose of tongues being fulfilled does not necessarily demand its cessation. Scripture does not conclusively assert that the gift of speaking in tongues has ceased.

At the same time, if the gift of speaking in tongues were active in the church today, it would be performed in agreement with Scripture. It would be a real and intelligible language (1 Corinthians 14:10). It would be for the purpose of communicating God's Word with a person of another language (Acts 2:6-12). It would be in agreement with the command that God gave through the Apostle Paul, "If anyone speaks in a tongue, two — or at the most three — should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God" (1 Corinthians 14:27-28). It would also be in submission to 1 Corinthians 14:33, “For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.”

God most definitely can give a person the gift of speaking in tongues to enable him/her to communicate with a person who speaks another language. The Holy Spirit is sovereign in the dispersion of the spiritual gifts (1 Corinthians 12:11). Just imagine how much more productive missionaries could be if they didn’t have to go to language school, and were instantly able to speak to people in their own language. However, God does not seem to be doing this. Tongues does not seem to occur today in the form it did in the New Testament despite the fact that it would be immensely useful. The vast majority of believers who claim to practice the gift of speaking in tongues do not do so in agreement with the Scriptures mentioned above. These facts lead to the conclusion that the gift of tongues has ceased, or is at least a rarity in God's plan for the church today.


(Bolding in last sentence is mine--G.)