Posted on 12/19/2005 6:23:54 AM PST by NYer
With many large churches across the U.S. announcing they won't be open on Christmas Day, some pastors are defending their decision to stay closed, even going so far as to blast those who question their motives.
Among them is Jon Weece, pastor of Southland Christian Church in Lexington, Ky., who received complaint e-mails from Christians in all 50 states.
"I was deeply saddened by the knee-jerk response of the Christian community as a whole to give the benefit of the doubt to the media and not a church or a brother in Christ," Weece said in his Dec. 10 sermon. "I'm still troubled that more Christians in this community specifically did not stand up for us knowing what this church represents."
(Audio of the entire sermon is available here.)
Weece blamed Satan the devil for using the Christmas issue as a distraction, prompting Christians to bicker among themselves.
"People are not the enemy," he said. "The devil is, and it is obvious that he has been at work in this situation."
Weece said the services being offered on Christmas Eve were still technically the "first day of the week" if one went by the custom of starting days at sunset, which some believe was the case in Jesus' day.
He went on to note: "Christmas began as a pagan holiday to the Roman gods, and if we were to really celebrate the historical birth of Jesus, it would either be in January or mid-April. I'm only pointing out the historical technicalities not out of intellectual arrogance, but again because of the illogical, ill-informed and even hypocritical arguments that were aimed at me personally this last week."
Weece also said Jesus himself walked all over opinion and tradition: "Do not lose sight of the controversy that Jesus incited by turning traditions on their head. And always remember in the economy of Jesus, the one whose birthday so many are claiming to be so passionate about, Jesus placed value and emphasis on people over policy and procedure and protocol every single time."
Meanwhile, the largest Christian church in South Florida has reversed itself on its closure Christmas Day, and now says it will be open for a single service next Sunday morning, Dec. 25.
Calvary Chapel of Fort Lauderdale now promoting its Christmas Day service online after initially announcing a Dec. 25 closure |
Calvary Chapel of Fort Lauderdale originally decided to give its members and workforce a day off to spend with their families on Christmas, even though it falls on Sunday, its traditional day of worship. Instead, it had scheduled a slate of extra services for Saturday night, Christmas Eve.
Pastor Bob Coy |
"I've been called a bad person and a shame to Christianity," pastor Bob Coy told the South Florida Sun-Sentinel. "It made me realize that many people misunderstood our motives."
But after an onslaught of negative public reaction from both inside and outside his congregation, Coy had a change of heart.
"Say it isn't so," read one e-mail, according to Coy. "You're shutting your doors on Jesus' birthday. I'm appalled at the message you're sending to the community."
Coy also was advised by some church members who said they wouldn't be able to attend services on Christmas Eve, and preferred to come on the actual holiday.
"Christmas is filled with unrealistic expectations," he said. "I don't want to fuel that. If people need Jesus on Christmas, I want to make Him available."
The entire issue has exacerbated the national Christmas controversy at a time which many believe is supposed to harken back to the Gospel of Luke's "peace on Earth."
"There is no biblical mandate that we meet on Sunday, only that we meet," writes Larry Baden in an online messageboard. "This is clearly a nonessential issue. Nobody's orthodoxy stands or falls on having a Sunday service. Nobody's salvation depends on having a Sunday service."
Minister Jeff Chitwood contends: "I think the issue centers on canceling worship on a day that is supposed to be centered on Christ. Too many times the church accuses the world of taking Christ out of Christmas but now the church is the one changing things because a day centered on Christ conflicts with schedules. What kind of message does it send to those who we have condemned in the past? At our church we are rescheduling service times but not eliminating the opportunity to worship on a day centered on Christ."
One poster said true worship is about much more than just singing or attending a church service.
"The way I greet my family when I go home from work is an act of worship. The way I talk to my co-workers. The dedication I give to my employer. The passion and inspiration I find in teaching or writing or editing or reading or mowing the lawn or ironing my shirts. ...
"Let's all just focus on God this Sunday. He's a big Guy. I'm sure those who look for him will find him even if they don't set foot in a church building."
"perception is more important than reality."
It's not my perception of reality, nor do I believe that "the world" is all following the issue of whether some Christian churches have a Sat nite service rather than a Sunday one and therefore all U.S. Christians are money hungry and behave badly by not going to church on Sunday morning. That's a rather grandiose position, to think that the whole world is looking at what some Christian churches do on Christmas in the U.S.
And, by the way, I don't care about what the world thinks. They hate us anyway, just for being U.S. citizens, much less being Christians. That's like saying Bush should do what the French and Germans and Russians want us to do, to please them so they won't hate us. The only ones bringing attention to this matter, however, aren't other countries, it's other U.S. Christians making a mountain out of a molehill. But, like you, this conversation needs to come to an end. On that we agree.
Maybe someday I will learn to take my own advice.
Do try.
Doesn't your Bible admonish you to "hear the Church" (St. Matthew 18?)
Yes, in the matter of one person offending another, FIRST the offended party is to go directly to the alleged offender and state his case and seek reconciliation. The matter is settled there, and a brother is "gained," if the two are reconciled. That is preferred to taking the matter to the church.
If the alleged offender can't see that he is in the wrong, then the offended party is to take one or two others with him. This is also preferred to taking it to the church. Reconciliation is attempted.
The last resort is to take the matter before the church. It does not say "Roman Catholic Church." It does not say "Baptist Church." It does not say "Presbyterian Church," It does not say "Reformed Church." It says simply "the church." In fact, there is no designation before the word "church" in any such passage of Scripture.
They were the only Bishops in existence throughout the Empire, and in Ethiopia, India, Persia, Armenia, Georgia, Scythia, etc. at the same time.
There were certainly little groups of heretics and schismatics like the Donatists here and there. None of them were part of a Church that stretched from one end of the earth to the other.
And many of these would have been men who held the doctrines of the Apostles, but saw no Scriptural warrant to organize in such a fashion.
Maybe they missed Acts 15.
Of course not. Because there is only one Holy Mother Church. One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. No need to "designate" what is obvious to all and known to all.
[your verbose answer]
Can I help you understand the question better? I didn't ask you what the difference was between Baptists and your sad understanding of the Catholic Church. I asked how it is you can criticise others for holding to an orthodoxy and calling out heretics when you, yourself, as you just demonstrated with your long-winded, critical answer do exactly the same thing.
You claim to not hold anything "anathema" or "heretical" but your words here demonstrate otherwise. If you did not hold the things you list as anathema, why would you make such a big deal about them? It's quite obvious you think we are wrong and you are right.
Does that help?
SD
Yes, in the matter of one person offending another, FIRST the offended party is to go directly to the alleged offender and state his case and seek reconciliation. The matter is settled there, and a brother is "gained," if the two are reconciled. That is preferred to taking the matter to the church. If the alleged offender can't see that he is in the wrong, then the offended party is to take one or two others with him. This is also preferred to taking it to the church. Reconciliation is attempted. The last resort is to take the matter before the church.
You've offended me with your gross mischaracterization of the motives and actions of my fellow believers in Christ. To which Church do we go to solve our dispute?
Or is this Biblical charge only make the Church a referee for petty personal disputes but completely powerless to explain and teach the meaning of God's Revelation to us?
SD
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.