1

I agree that Chick Publications scared (scarred?) many a kid -- including me. As for Halloween, my own family has wrestled with what participation, if any, is appropriate. Rather than get into pagan vs. Christian origins of the holiday (which most people don't care about anyway), we reached this decision: we choose not to participate because today, at least, the holiday centers as much as possible on themes of death and the occult for too many people. If asked, that's the brief witness we offer, along with our assurance that if someone chooses to participate, it certainly doesn't mean we're going to shut them out. Since the Bible instructs us to dwell on what is noble, right, and good, standard Halloween traditions just don't interest us. That said, I have three boys, and I'm aware they're missing the fun of dressing up, trick-o-treat, etc. So what we do is pick a night the week before Halloween, and do a reverse trick-or-treat -- we 'sneak up' to houses of our friends, and leave little gift bags with (non-Halloween-themed) candy and treats in them. The kids like the "mission impossible" feel we give to the late evening neighborhood run, and they get the enjoyment of giving gifts to their friends. Seems to have worked for us, but as with many issues like this, each person must look to Christ and their conscience for how to proceed.

2

This in an interesting article and here is an excerpt (both cribbed from Thinklings):

“Halloween” is simply a contraction for All Hallow’s Eve (Hallow-Even—Hallow-E’n—Halloween). The word “hallow” means “saint,” in that “hallow” is just an alternative form of the word “holy” (“hallowed be Thy name”). All Saints’ Day is November 1. It is the celebration of the victory of the saints in union with Christ. The observance of various celebrations of All Saints arose in the late 300s, and these were united and fixed on Novemeber 1 in the late 700s . . . The Festival of All Saints reminds us that though Jesus has finished His work, we have not finished ours. He has struck the decisive blow, but we have the privilege of working in the mopping up operation . . .

The Biblical day begins in the preceding evening, and thus in the Church calendar, the eve of a day is the actual beginning of the festive day. Christmas Eve is most familiar to us, but there is also the Vigil of Holy Saturday that preceeds Easter Morn. Similarly, All Saints’ Eve precedes All Saints’ Day . . . The concept, as dramatized in Christian custom, is quite simple: on October 31, the demonic realm tries one last time to achieve victory, but is banished by the joy of the Kingdom.

What is the means by which the demonic realm is vanquished? In a word: mockery. Satan’s great sin (and our great sin) is pride. Thus, to drive Satan from us, we ridicule him . . . on All Hallows’ Eve, the custom arose of mocking the demonic realm by dressing children in costumes. Because the power of Satan has been broken once and for all, our children can mock him by dressing up like ghosts, goblins, and witches. The fact that we can dress our children this way shows our supreme confidence in the utter defeat of Satan by Jesus Christ—we have NO FEAR!

“He who sits in the heavens laughs; Yahweh ridicules them” says Psalm 2. Let us join in His holy laughter and mock the enemies of Christ on October 31.

3

An excellent post. While I enjoy Chick tracts myself, I would strenuously object to a stranger giving one to my child.

4

Jack Chick is the embodiment of fundamentalist culture. To criticize him is also to criticise fundamentalist culture. I do not consider myself a fan, but I do not quickly dismiss his influence/representation. He would make a good topic for more extended/in depth treatment.

5

20 years? Chick has been around since the 60's. These days he's basically just updating his old scripts.

6

It appears Satan found his chainsaw after all. So now we have a high school kid ready to sacrifice a kitty while a pumpkin-headed demon reenacts the Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Let me just say that if anybody were to drop this tract into my kid’s candy bag I’d be paying that house a return visit. And I’d be bringing my own snake on a rope.

Suppose, though, you grew up in a home where your parents wouldn't let you watch any horror movies or comics etc. This little comic strip gives you a story as good as Friday the 13th or the Halloween Movies & you could get it past your parents since it is supposedly Christian! I've seen these tracts too, BTW, and they are amazingly subversive...so much so I wonder if Chick really believed the stuff or was getting off on fooling fundamentalist Christians!

What is the means by which the demonic realm is vanquished? In a word: mockery. Satan’s great sin (and our great sin) is pride. Thus, to drive Satan from us, we ridicule him . . . on All Hallows’ Eve, the custom arose of mocking the demonic realm by dressing children in costumes. Because the power of Satan has been broken once and for all, our children can mock him by dressing up like ghosts, goblins, and witches. The fact that we can dress our children this way shows our supreme confidence in the utter defeat of Satan by Jesus Christ—we have NO FEAR!

Speaking of which, Freakonomics author Steve Levitt has an interesting chapter in his book (the one with the (in)famous abortion reduces crime theory) on mockery and how it broke the KKK. When the KKK was really big it made a big to do about secrets. Members would have secret greetings, secret codes, secret handshakes and so on. Learning the secrets was an almost sacred ritual in the organization.

One guy who wanted to break the klan had a friend who wrote for the Superman radio show. So he joined the KKK undercover. As he learned their secret codes he gave them to the show's writers. Shows would then be produced with Superman fighting KKKvillians who use thed the exact same secret codes as the real KKK. The Klan lost a lot of steem and members as men would go home and watch their children playing Superman using the supposedly top secret codes they thought were so important. Mockery is a potent weapon...and a much nicer one than violence if you think about it.

An excellent post. While I enjoy Chick tracts myself, I would strenuously object to a stranger giving one to my child.

My child will learn that there's a huge array of beliefs out there and I wouldn't object to someone giving him one. It's one thing to learn that people have different beliefs in the academic sense but another to see it in real life. Besides, IMO they are pretty well done comics!

7

Holy Crap. What am I supposed to feel right now?

Hilarious post, Joe... but also pointed. This tract was the funniest thing I've read all week, and yet I'm horrified that such a thing exists. I rejoice that warm-hearted evangelical Christianity (I hope!) repudiates the way Chick would spread the gospel, and yet I'm humbled and broken in the knowledge that most unbelievers might not be able to put their finger on the difference between Chick and me.

8

dr sardonicus, hey, how's that botox injection workin' out for you? I heard it froze your face in some kind of horrifying grimace.

9

Check out http://www.chick.com/catalog/comics/0110.asp

He certainly had a thing against Druids. Not only did they invent rock music and Dungeons and Dragons as a strategy to destroy Christianity, they have hundreds of thousands of members many of whom operate under cover!

10

Great post, Joe.

Halloween definitely seemes to serve as a Rorschach test for quickly determining believers' attitudes about the relationship between the believer and the secular world.

Another "hot potato" that does the same is asking people how they feel about the Harry Potter books. I once made the mistake of bringing up how much I enjoyed the books at a party givien by a member of a very conservative Southern Baptist church.

It reminds me of the old John Fisher piece on "in it but not of it".

At least they didn't give me a Chick tract.

11

Another Chick Tract casualty here. With me it was This Was Your Life (a much-parodied piece about The Last Judgement) and The Beast (Chick's predecessor to Left Behind, read during the Gospel-According-to-Hal-Lindsay Rapture scares of the Seventies). It took discovering D&D (itself the subject of Dark Dungeons) to pull me out of it.

Regarding Halloween, former talk-show host Rich Buhler used to say on the air that "You can tell when it's October; that's when all the Christian talk shows start getting all the call-ins about Halloween."

12

It's unfortunate that so many posters here were "emotionally scarred" by Jack Chick's cartoon images as children. Yet I'd suggest hell is a lot scarier than Jack Chick's silly cartoons.

I wonder; does Halloween bring glory to Jesus Christ? (Yes or No)
How does participating in an obviously anti-Christian (demonic?) holiday promote the gospel message?

"70's fundie logic"? Surely you're aware that ad hominem is the first resort of the intellectually dishonest? Or perhaps you're suggesting that there is something wrong with a fundamental (literal) belief in scripture?

"anti-Catholic bigot"? Are you suggesting that Catholics are actually somehow capable of working their way into heaven? Or that perhaps "Mary Queen of Heaven" is co-redemptrix with Christ?

Speaking of slippery slopes...

13

Soup,

I think you should read David's excellent comment on the origin and meaning of Halloween and then respond (post #2 on this thread).

14

I read the post you referenced, but would stop short of describing it as “excellent”. To follow this line of thinking to its logical conclusion then one could claim that going along with the world (in this case) by dressing our children and/or ourselves in Halloween costumes and parading around town is actually a form of stealth worship of Jesus. Sure, “Take THAT devil!” By this logic then believers can join in all manner of worldly activity and claim we’re actually “sticking to the enemy” by poking fun at his impotence.

Therefore, should Christians engage in homosexual sodomy in order to ridicule the devil’s inability to make us become homosexuals?

I find this logic more than a bit perverse.

15

Not quite as perverse as your poor logical skills (something that the Chick comics also share but are redeemed by being quite entertaining and well done as a comic).

The origin of the Holiday is not 'the world' but from Christians....not as important as Easter or Christmas but a Holiday whose origins is Christian nonetheless. Of course many people do not celebrate it as a religious holiday but simply as a fun day. That's true of Christmas and Easter as well.

Your assertion was that the Holiday was anti-Christian and I presum 'pro-Satan' or 'pro-pagan' or whatnot. The evidence presented would indicate that is false.

16

If you accept the “evidence” presented by the poster in lieu of the evidence all around you during this “holiday” season – pagan symbols, ghoulish and macabre celebrations, et al - then I would suggest we simply cannot reason together on the issue.

It’s telling that you used the space in your riposte to snark about the nature of my logic. Might I suggest again, please refrain (if possible) from ad hominem attacks as they serve only to weaken the strength of your position. Generally speaking it’s best to stick to the argument at hand.

17

Ad hominem attacks do not weaken arguments. They make them interesting to read.

Any thoughts on the Miers withdrawal?

Was it her incompetence that forced the withdrawal? Or was she not ultra-conservative enough for Dobson et al. (i.e., was it not entirely clear that she advocated the dismantling of a fundamental right to privacy)?

I think it was her incompetence.

But I've also suspected that the whole nomination was a distraction of sorts to test the waters for a competent candidate who makes Roberts look like Ginsberg.

18

It’s telling that you used the space in your riposte to snark about the nature of my logic. Might I suggest again, please refrain (if possible) from ad hominem attacks as they serve only to weaken the strength of your position. Generally speaking it’s best to stick to the argument at hand.

Thanks but I can afford a bit of weakening since I appear to be pretty far ahead. As for sticking to the argument at hand, you have not addressed the arguments or evidence presented to you.

19

But I've also suspected that the whole nomination was a distraction of sorts to test the waters for a competent candidate who makes Roberts look like Ginsberg.

Douglas or Allen?

20

It would appear that you’ve made the leap from ad hominem to smarmy and self congratulatory responses, most interesting…

Are you referring to the argument that celebrating Halloween is actually a stealth celebration of Christ? Whatever one may choose to believe about the Christian origins of Halloween, it’s patently clear that in practice today it bears no resemblance to Biblical Christianity whatsoever. But that’s probably just the fundamentalist in me showing forth. Perhaps if I were more tolerant or progressive I could understand.

Oh well…

21

Perhaps if I were more tolerant or progressive I could understand.

Perhaps you should try for more "Christ-like".

22

fengr -- you're sharp today.

Now, how about answering the question? ;)

23

I think the power of a holiday really comes from the meaning that you assign to it. I think that some Christians, because they get so worked up about it, actually celebrate it more than most people. It's a sort of negative attachment that is much fiercer and devout than anything an average Halloween party go-er would come up with. Christians make the holiday a celebration to demons, and the Devil. For most people it's just candy and costumes. It has no meaning or power beyond that. (Unless you are in a Barney the Purple Dinosaur costume. That is a sure sign of demonic possession.)

24

Perhaps if I were more tolerant or progressive I could understand.

Perhaps you should try for more "Christ-like".

It's unclear to me if you are unable to distinguish the abstract from the personal, or if you are unable to recognize facetiousness.

Perhaps you can elucidate...

25

fengr -- you're sharp today.

Now, how about answering the question? ;)

You should probably ask someone a little higher up. I'm still trying to figure out how to work my secret de-coder ring.

26

Are you referring to the argument that celebrating Halloween is actually a stealth celebration of Christ? Whatever one may choose to believe about the Christian origins of Halloween, it’s patently clear that in practice today it bears no resemblance to Biblical Christianity whatsoever.

Neither does mainstream Christmas, does that mean we should rail against Christmastime celebrations?

27

Neither does mainstream Christmas, does that mean we should rail against Christmastime celebrations?

Actually I've not seen anyone in this thread "rail" against anything.

To th contrary, there has merely been some (basically civil) disagreement about the appropriateness of Christians observing Halloween.

While I'm no fan of the post-modern observance of "X-mas", and I'm saddened by the studious substitution of Santa Claus for Christ in the broader Christian culture, I'd still posit that there are certainly clearer Christian underpinnings to the "Christmas season" one can point out to the lost than during the "Halloween season".

I suppose it could be argued that a Christian could smear red and white makeup all over onself and dance naked like an insane clown in the Halloween moonlight every year and still go to heaven, but it seems that such an absurd activity would serve only to harm one's witness and would fail utterly in advancing the kingdom in any way.

28

"Another "hot potato" that does the same is asking people how they feel about the Harry Potter books. I once made the mistake of bringing up how much I enjoyed the books at a party givien by a member of a very conservative Southern Baptist church.

It reminds me of the old John Fisher piece on "in it but not of it".

At least they didn't give me a Chick tract."

You mean Chick hasn't written a Potter tract yet? Someone really ought to let him know about that evil evil series so that he can help rid the world of the twisted lovers of little Harry.

On second thought no: Chick represents some of the worst of Christianity. In response to another comment further up this thread, I completely dismiss him.

29

Along the lines of Chrisitanity vs. Halloween, you might find an article I wrote on the matter a couple years back to be of value. Then again, you might not. (Actually, it's more broadly about holidays with non-Christian origins than strictly an analysis of Halloween.) I like to think it conveys a reasoned, conservative-Christian take on the holiday. And why I enjoy it. If interested, it awaits your pleasure here: http://www.nowheresville.us/halloween/

30

But Chick has written a tract on witchcraft and Harry Potter. In it, we learn that reading Rowling's books opens kids up to spirit guide possession. Harry Potter will lead untold millions to hell!

I suppose Jack Chick is the harvest we've reaped for sowing the seeds of anti-intellectualism. Sigh.

31

One dollar says "Soup" is the blogger formerly known as Mac Swift.

32

Larry: "fengr -- you're sharp today.

Now, how about answering the question?"

Speaking of answering the question, Larry, how about answering us where exactly got your degree in molecular biology? We don't need to see the diplomas in PDF format or anything of the sort, just a simple answer would do fine. You sure do seem to have a hard time answering that question.

Then you could point us to where you have been published.

33

One dollar says "Soup" is the blogger formerly known as Mac Swift.

Naah. I think he's just trying to re-invent Wahabi Islam for Christians.

34

Joe,
I remember you have done other posts on Chick as well. You've label things as an 'unneccessary fear of Satan'. I wondered then, as I do now, what you think about the supernatural realm, especially with respects to Satan, Demons, possession and spiritural attack.

Note that I don't think much of Chick's tracts, but I am interesting in finding out what you do believe on this topic.

35

"Speaking of answering the question, Larry.."

Still flogging the proverbial deceased equine, eh Cheesehead? It is abundantly clear that Larry has no interest in responding to this query. If you wish to question his integrity, just do so and have done with it.

36

Speaking of answering the question, Larry, how about answering us where exactly got your degree in molecular biology? We don't need to see the diplomas in PDF format or anything of the sort, just a simple answer would do fine. You sure do seem to have a hard time answering that question.

Hint: it wasn't an Ivy League school. I met a tenth year grad student when I visited Harvard. That was enough to make me run the other direction. Some really really smart professors there, however. Knowles, Wang, Losick, and Melton come to mind immediately as people whose work interested me at the time.

37

And why I enjoy it. If interested, it awaits your pleasure here: http://www.nowheresville.us/halloween/

Posted by: The Dane at October 27, 2005 05:37 PM

Interestingly some "Christians" seem to quite enjoy polygamy and vigorously cite scripture to support their position (no pun intended).

For example...

Without the gentle leading of the Holy Spirit and the manifold wisdom of The Holy Writ there's little limit to folks simply believing as they will and conducting their affairs in the manner they - in their conceit - deem appropriate.

This is commonly known as moral relativism which is one of many unhappy by-products of our "intellectual" schools of higher criticism.

Someone in this thread has already mentioned the principle of "reaping what you sow"...

For more information google "the law of unintended consequences".

38

Well, I for one didn't expect it to be an Ivy League school. So that still leaves Mt. Scenario as the possible answer...

Rob: It wouldn't be worth discussing if Larry didn't constantly appeal to his supposed advanced degree to argue from authority that his positions are correct.

No one is quite so amusing as the unquestioned questioner once someone pulls back the curtain on him. ("I am OZ!!!! The Great...The Powerful...um, pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!!!")

39

CORRECTION FROM PREVIOUS POST:

For example... = http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46867

One dollar says "Soup" is the blogger formerly known as Mac Swift.

I'm unfamiliar with "Mac Swift".

Naah. I think he's just trying to re-invent Wahabi Islam for Christians.

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I was under the impression that the evangelical outpost was an evangelical Christian site.

Furthermore I normally associate "Christian" with a follower of Christ which, at least to me, includes certain characteristics such as actually believing His Word, submitting to His authority, and ordering one's life in a manner that brings honor to His Holy name as Biblically prescribed; a manner worthy of the high calling of Christ.

There's wonderful true liberty in the Lord, but let us not use that liberty as an occasion for sin.

40

OK, it has to be the context here, but for some reason I found it immensely funny that Chick tracts "scared the hell out of me".

Sorry, but I had a hard time being serious the rest of the way through your post.
====
But being new ( and inconsistant) in participating here, how is Larry Lord so adept at making everything all about him? Who's aiding and abetting this?

You've got to be loving it, Larry. No matter what the topic is, somehow it gets more cowbell to get back round to the really important topic of the day...oh yeah, and what about LARRY?

41

Alan,

You've label things as an 'unneccessary fear of Satan'.

I just think that some Christians forget that Satan and other demons are an already defeated enemy. Still dangerous, but certainly nothing for a Christian to fear.

I wondered then, as I do now, what you think about the supernatural realm, especially with respects to Satan, Demons, possession and spiritural attack.

I try to avoid writing about such topics for fear of exposing my own ignorance. But I think that would make a good subject for a future post.

42

Hey Joe, thanks for the mention (I think ;-) ). Have to say, I've never actually experienced a Chick tract; guess I've missed out!

I am curious to know your sources for this statement:
Halloween is the holiday equivalent of Wicca – a 20th century invention that pretends to have ancient pagan roots. Halloween has nothing to do with Samhain, a Celtic agricultural festival that marked the beginning of winter. There is also no evidence that Samhain was a celebration devoted to the dead or to ancestor worship

43

This is commonly known as moral relativism which is one of many unhappy by-products of our "intellectual" schools of higher criticism.

the only real argument that soup has made is he can't see what purpose is served by someone painting themselves red and dancing around . I haven't seen that too often during Halloween. The Holiday's origins are undeniably Christian. Today its purpose is almost entirely secular (although All Saints Day is still celebrated in the Catholic Church)....

It's interesting how weak soup's religion is. Just about everything in the world is some type of threat to it. Harry Potter books, even a Christian Holiday like Halloween! Do you think athiests like Larry sit around worrying every time someone sends them a Christmas card that opening it might cause them to forget athiesm?

Also for the record let's not that soup's tactic here has basically been to assume the conclusion and then demand that we prove him wrong...which is impossible since he has made it clear he won't read anything he disagrees with. When desperate toss out a few rants against moral relativism and don't forget post-modernism!

You've got to be loving it, Larry. No matter what the topic is, somehow it gets more cowbell to get back round to the really important topic of the day...oh yeah, and what about LARRY?

Larry does a pretty good job at providing provokingly wicked arguments. He does allow himself to stray off topic too often (I think he posted here something about Myers withdrawing from the SC nomination). Also he does give up too easily with hardcore cases here and chooses instead to just mock them. I, on the other hand, have more faith and will engage the hopeless here more often. Currently my list of hardcore patients includes Gordon and Terry but I can add one or two more.

Joe:
I try to avoid writing about such topics for fear of exposing my own ignorance. But I think that would make a good subject for a future post.

when you get the chance you might want to check out this book on exorcism written by Rome's chief exorcist. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0898707102/103-6548517-0881403?v=glance&n=283155&s=books&v=glance I perused it in B&N

Several interesting themes caught my skeptical but open mind:

1. He is very straight forward in that the 'supernatural' and 'possession' is unusual and weak compared with a normal prayer. He states that confession is much more powerful than the ritual (for exorcism).

2. Oddly he gives credit to curses, hexes, and other occult practices. In fact he attributes a lot of trouble to people being the victim of curses and the 'evil eye'.... I guess that must be an Italian thing since I have rarely encountered anyone in America who takes that stuff seriously. I've noticed this in other realms too, for example the _Christ Clone_ trilogy has otherwise very sensible Larry-like people falling head over heals for psysics and other new-agey types. In fact some Christians seem to have set up the occult as a parrell religion that mirrors Christianity. This, of course, actually lends credibility to it as an alternate religion. It's like Coke saying they beat Pepsi in taste tests. Implicit in that statement is that if Coke isn't around then Pepsi is the 2nd best alternative. Secular types, of course, just laugh the New-Age type religions out of the park. We also, for good measure, laugh what I like to call the 'dumb religions' out of the park as well....this IMO includes Scientology & Mormonism. (BTW, South Park did a wicked job cutting up the Mormon religion a while ago...anyone see it).

I am curious to know your sources for this statement:
Halloween is the holiday equivalent of Wicca – a 20th century invention that pretends to have ancient pagan roots....

Well I'll let Joe speak for himself but I'll note that Halloween could not have been evented by Wicca since Wicca is pure 20th century & represents a trivial portion of the population while Halloween developed as a holiday long before that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween#Celtic_observation_of_Samhain is usually pretty reliable for these sorts of questions. It basically says the Samhain was a holiday to celebrate the end of summer and start of winter. It's main event was lighting fires to scare off evil spirits (this was long before Chick tracks, TV or Joe's blog so big fires were quite entertaining back then). Like many other customs it got combined with other cultures (such as the Romans who added honoring the dead with it).

44

Joe,
Thanks for the answer. I look forward to seeing a post in the future. For me, I am concerned that Christian's do not pay enough respect to the spiritual realm which can lead to calamity.

As an analogy, whilst I may walk through a zoo and look at the caged dangerous animals without fear, unless I realise they are dangerous, I might be tempted to go play with a lion.

45

Bonnie I am curious to know your sources for this statement:

Nicholas Rogers "From Pagan Ritual to Party Night" (Oxford Univ. Press) (There is a brief excerpt on Google Scholar)

Salon.com also had a good article a few years ago showing that the holiday is a late 20th century "reinvention" of All Hallow's Eve.

Boonton Well I'll let Joe speak for himself but I'll note that Halloween could not have been evented by Wicca since Wicca is pure 20th century...

My sentence may have been poorly worded so let me clarify that what I meant was that Halloween, like Wicca, is a 20th century invention. There is no direct link between paganism and the holiday except in the minds of neo-pagans (and unfortunately, many Christians).

46

the only real argument that soup has made is he can't see what purpose is served by someone painting themselves red and dancing around . I haven't seen that too often during Halloween. The Holiday's origins are undeniably Christian. Today its purpose is almost entirely secular (although All Saints Day is still celebrated in the Catholic Church)....

It's interesting how weak soup's religion is. Just about everything in the world is some type of threat to it. Harry Potter books, even a Christian Holiday like Halloween! Do you think athiests like Larry sit around worrying every time someone sends them a Christmas card that opening it might cause them to forget athiesm?

Also for the record let's not that soup's tactic here has basically been to assume the conclusion and then demand that we prove him wrong...which is impossible since he has made it clear he won't read anything he disagrees with. When desperate toss out a few rants against moral relativism and don't forget post-modernism!

Methinks your reading comprehension suffers.

At any rate, I never mentioned Harry Potter, nor did I mention anything about fear or worry.

To the contrary, I simply stated that I cannot see any appropriate reason for a Christian to observe Halloween; then I proceeded stated several reasons why, and along the way included a colorful (albeit absurd) metaphor which sadly seems lost on you.

Sorry if my "religion" seems weak to you, but let it be said that your silly and unfounded personal attacks are really quite incidental and insignificant to me.

47

To the contrary, I simply stated that I cannot see any appropriate reason for a Christian to observe Halloween; then I proceeded stated several reasons why, and along the way included a colorful (albeit absurd) metaphor which sadly seems lost on you.

1. It's fun.

2. It's harmless.

3. It promotes brotherhood and good will towards one's fellow neighbors.

This is well in keeping with the Golden Rule. It does not celebrate the satanic, demonic etc. If it says anything about them it is to mock them as David nicely demonstrated. In other words, the Holiday was invented as a 'prep rally' for 'our team's' impending victory over the other team.

Joe:
My sentence may have been poorly worded so let me clarify that what I meant was that Halloween, like Wicca, is a 20th century invention. There is no direct link between paganism and the holiday except in the minds of neo-pagans (and unfortunately, many Christians).

I find it sad that a religion is unable to stand on its own two feet. Wicca is supposedly more ancient than Christianity yet they depended on Christians to invent Halloween for them!

48

For whatever reason, the Lord has seen fit to place me in situations where I have been exposed to the reality of spiritual warfare, and the awesome power of the name of Jesus Christ. So while I do not fear Satan, I have a healthy respect for the reality of his power. But I know that through faith in Jesus, believers have been give authority. And authority is the right to determine how power is used. Spiritual warfare is not about power --it's about authority. Satan has more power than I do. But in Jesus' name, I have more authority.

One theme that I noticed is missing from the discussion is the concept of not causing a brother to stumble. I can eat meat sacrificed to idols (In theory, at least. To my knowledge, the pre-packaged meat that I buy at my local grocery store hasn't been ritually sacrificed) with a clear conscience, because I know the idol to be a false god. But this changes if I am with someone who is unsure about whether or not this is acceptable. If my eating emboldens him to eat what he thinks might be sinful meat, then I am sinning as well.

Comparing this to Halloween, I think it is more important to consider our immediate neighbors. You know, the ones who will actually see whether we celebrate Halloween or not.

I think that perhaps the larger issue here is that we have forgotten what it is to be a neighbor, to actually know the people around whom we live. If we knew our neighbors, then we would know if they think that Halloween is just a fun way to get a bunch of free candy for their kids, or if they think there is something more sinister to it than this.

How about using Halloween as a springboard for a compassionate discussion, much as Paul did with his reference to the monument to "an unknown god"? Just a thought...

49

Joe:

Had to skip commenting until now because I thought you were giving Jack Chick attention he doesn't deserve. But your confession to being short on "devil doctrines" provoked me. I think if Christians would stick to what the Scriptures teach about resisting Satan, there wouldn't be enough material to hold a one-day seminar, much less whole spiritual warfare conferences. That's not because it's unimportant -- it is important -- but because it's simple, since, as you assert, we're dealing with an already defeated foe.

One funny memory: The late C.M. Ward (a name Joe might remember from his charismatic days) once said "Anyone who thinks a Christian can't have a demon has never been to an Assemblies of God business meeting." Not a Calvinist, but a good Arminian one-liner nonetheless.

Regarding the always interesting tenor of discussion here, Soup's tone reminds me of the evil church guy in Disney's animated Hunchback movie. Gosh man, you're insisting on fidelity to Scripture and good doctrine, but you come across so stuck up as to have me wondering if you have some vassal with a laptop taking dictation while you think up your next snotty reply.

Take some advice Mssr. Soup: Walk into this "room" with the wrong tone, a weak argument, or often even the right tone and a good argument, and you'll bring out the trolls, some of whom have an amazing amount of time (and bile) for potshots and derision. You'll also discover an assortment of fellow believers, bitchy skeptics (at least one of whom writes like Harvey Fierstein trying to sound manly), friendly atheists (hello Goggins!), and even evangelicals who can spell!

In other words there are friendly exchanges, vigorous arguments, and a few shots by snots. But the most irritating ones are the snotty shots in Jesus' name.

50

Regarding the always interesting tenor of discussion here, Soup's tone reminds me of the evil church guy in Disney's animated Hunchback movie. Gosh man, you're insisting on fidelity to Scripture and good doctrine, but you come across so stuck up as to have me wondering if you have some vassal with a laptop taking dictation while you think up your next snotty reply.
Take some advice Mssr. Soup: Walk into this "room" with the wrong tone, a weak argument, or often even the right tone and a good argument, and you'll bring out the trolls, some of whom have an amazing amount of time (and bile) for potshots and derision. You'll also discover an assortment of fellow believers, bitchy skeptics (at least one of whom writes like Harvey Fierstein trying to sound manly), friendly atheists (hello Goggins!), and even evangelicals who can spell!
In other words there are friendly exchanges, vigorous arguments, and a few shots by snots. But the most irritating ones are the snotty shots in Jesus' name.
Allow me to apologize for seeming “evil” or “snotty” as that wasn’t my intent. Perhaps this is one of the many blind spots that I need to address. Thanks for your advice and analysis.

51

Soup's cool, I like him despite our disagreements. I think it would be neat, though, if we could call him the Soup Nazi after the Seinfield episode....but he might take offense to that...

52

Soup's cool, I like him despite our disagreements. I think it would be neat, though, if we could call him the Soup Nazi after the Seinfield episode....but he might take offense to that...

Posted by: Boonton at October 28, 2005 10:30 AM

Contrary to what you may think I'm not easily offended, nor am I legalistic.

I merely try to point to "God's best" according to my (perhaps limited) understanding of scripture.

53

Joe,
I grew up on Assembly of God, Foursquare, Church of God and I don't remember chick tracts. There was however, some other(pentecostal?) version of them. What I do remember is being frightened into full blown anxiety attacks.
IMO the church/churches were attempting to control the parishoners through fear and in the process "scared the church out of them". At the present, my opinion of the church is fairly negative but my belief in Christ is not. The multitude of questions that I had seemed to elicit a defensive response and the answers have left me skeptical.

54

Looking over the tracks many of them are notable for hitting the reader up with fear and lots of it. God has little mercy in the world of Chick & its off to the pit of fire for just about everyone! Like a vaccine, though, I don't think avoiding the tracts is the best thing...I think a dose of them will help one develop immunity to their worse features.

On the other hand, some of his tracts make good points even if you don't accept his rather one-dimensional religion. For example, even an athiest can appreciate "This was your life" for the way it can show how easy it is to waste one's life away without realizing it.

55

Larry,
Going back to Meirs.... sorry everyone - off topic. You said "Or was she not ultra-conservative enough for Dobson et al. " I think it was Dick Durbin who said "this withdrawal was not about documents, it was about Dobson".
Did I miss something in the last week? For at least the first 2 weeks or so I know Dobson was supporting the Meirs nomination. If y'all want to blast a conservative for opposing Meirs, some candidates would be George Will, Bill Kristol, Pat Buchanan, etc. Of course you could also blast many Dems who weren't about to vote for her with the exception of Reid. But, I have to give the Dems credit... they kept their powder dray and let the anti-Meirs conservatives do all the talking. Now they can appear 'above it all' and use their powder on the next nominee.
(Maybe Dobson changed his mind and I missed it?)

56

The kids like candy. They bring home tons of the stuff; and even share with me (ok, maybe it's the chewy ones that annoy them, but it's still sharing). Makes them smile. No demonic rituals involved, other than perhaps watching Charlie Brown and the Great Pumkin. Maybe I just haven't thought this one out...

57

In other words there are friendly exchanges, vigorous arguments, and a few shots by snots. But the most irritating ones are the snotty shots in Jesus' name.

Dennis Prager, Jewish lay theologian and radio talk-show host, has said in some of his essays that "Taking the LORD's Name In Vain" primarily refers to claiming God as your justification for doing evil.

58

Boonton

Larry does a pretty good job at providing provokingly wicked arguments. He does allow himself to stray off topic too often (I think he posted here something about Myers withdrawing from the SC nomination).

Yes, I apologize for the OT comment. I knew we'd only have a little window to discuss it, now that Fitzmas is upon us ...

Elwood

For at least the first 2 weeks or so I know Dobson was supporting the Meirs nomination.

You're right, Elwood. I mistakenly mixed up my ultra-conservatives. Dobson had given his blessing to the nomination after some private meeting with Rove where he was told things that he wasn't able to divulge but which convinced him that Meirs was going to "do the right thing" if put on the Court.

I still think Meirs' incompetence was the real reason she got slammed. She just wasn't going to cut the mustard. It's like putting Kent Hovind on a stand to argue for "intelligent design" when you've got Michael Behe. Plus there was the likelihood that Dobson was going to get subpoenaed as well to testify about what he heard from Rove. It would have been a disaster.

Again, I apologize for the OT comments. Mr. Carter hasn't been tossing us enough meaty bones lately.

How about that Kansas Supreme Court ruling re the discriminatory laws against gay child molesters??? I thought that was a pretty huge cannonball dropped smack into the center of the moral/legal swamp where most of us here enthusiastically paddle.

59

Here's one of my favorite Chick tracts that is amusing in its own horrifyingly misguided way:

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0273/0273_01.asp

I think Chick's tracts change over time because, as I recall, a panel is missing in this cartoon where the men shout back at Lot after he offers them his daughters, "Forget your daughters! We want the men!!!"

But Chick's portrayal of gay men here is truly amusing. It's not that living examples of those stereotypes don't exist -- they surely do -- it's just funny to see them so obviously selected for the sole purpose of satisfying the sympathetic reader's preconceptions.

60

I'll start off by saying that I feel that, like the early believers who waited outside the pagan temples to buy discounted meat, there is no sin in the act of joining in the event. There is the stumbling block/weaker brother factor that we all have to be aware of though. The Holy Spirit will guide us in these matters if we allow him to.
That being said, I'll bring up this point to ponder. Halloween can be a great time to teach our children Biblical truths about subjects that don't come up very often. Wither we go out for trick-or-treat or not, our children are exposed to these things through school, TV, friends, etc., and need our guidance. When questions come like, "Dad, does the Devil really have horns" or "Mom, are ghosts and witches real" we can be there with scriptural truths that won't leave them confused or worse yet jaded and desensitized. In other words it is ok to let your child play with the lovable stuffed toy alligator that aunt Betty gave him but you'd better educate him in the truth about how dangerous real alligators are.
Just my observation, thanks and God bless you all.

61

Soup, I realize I may forget to come back here to read this, but I'd like to toss these out:

1. You've not been clear, at least, IMO, in the reasons behind you stance. Are you objecting that they participate in secular activities, or, are you suggesting that any participation at all in the day is wrong? I'm not clear on that, can you clarify, please?

2. If the latter, not the former then why? Is it because you think that somehow that day is more Satanic than others? If so, how so? 1 John 5:19 says the whole world is under the power of the evil one 24/7 anyway, but it also says that believers are not part of the world under his power immediately beforehand. How then can Christians be putting themselves under the power of Satan on Halloween when he has no power over them anyway?

3. Didn't Paul call controversies over days foolish? Why are you seeking to impose a standard on your fellow believers that the Apostles do not? Unless they are participating in pagan worship or their participation is taken by unbelievers to be open approval of a pagan practice of some sort by worship of their gods, you have no grounds of complaint, per his teachings on days and matters of conscience. Likewise, they have no right to demand you participate in the day.

4. Couldn't your logic be applied to Christmas for Protestants? If the issue has anything to do with the origin of the day, then Christmas qualifies as tacit approval of Catholicism, something not tolerated by the Reformed churches in particular, Protestants broadly. If the problem is commercialization, that's a different story, because the day has religious value.

5. Which brings me here. If the day could be used constructively and redemptively, would you feel differently? You know, Soup, there is actually a way for Protestant Christians to participate in Halloween, because it is also our own Reformation Day.

Historically, we Protestants make much of the 95 Theses. We forget that Luther nailed the 95 Theses to the door of Wittenberg Cathedral on October 31, 1517. Catholic researcher Erwin Iserloh asserted in 1961 that this was a legend. Regardless, all modern scholars acknowledge that, on Oct. 31, 1517, Luther wrote a letter to his superiors, and it contained the 95 Theses, titled Disputation of Doctor Martin Luther on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences, Why not take the opportunity to teach your children about the 95 Theses on Halloween? Nail a facsimile to your own door that day, or make one up on your own, perhaps a short statement of faith about what your house believes modeled on your local church's confession or the confessional document of your denomination.

You can easily find them via any search engine by typing "95 Theses." If you choose to use a confession of faith other than your church's or denomination's, try: The 39 Articles of The Christian Religion, the Westminster Confession of Faith, the New Hampshire Confession of 1833, the Baptist Faith and Message, the 2nd London Baptist Confession, the Campus Crusade Confession, or the Assemblies of God Confession. Each of these can be paraphrased and condensed into a format that you can print into a page or two and nail to your door.

Discuss who Luther was with your family and why this is important. If you choose not to use the 95 Theses, then use this opportunity to sit down with your family during your family worship during the month of October and write out your own family's confession of faith and teach them about it, just as Luther preached against the sale of indulgences prior to this event in the days leading up to Reformation Day all month. It's a lesson they will not forget.

Doing this will also give any guests who drop by this night something to see that will immediately identify your home as a Christian home. If they ask about it, take this opportunity to explain it personally. This is a prime opportunity to witness to your neighbors, and your own display of the 95 Theses or your family's confessional documents can be a visual cue to do just that. From that point on your home will be identified as a Christian home and a home that, while you may not approve of your own children participating in the day, will give out candy to the ones that come by to visit and will take time to shake hands with your neighbors and show them your confession of faith and tell them a bit about Reformation Day and that the light of Christ, the light of reformation, shines in your own home.

62

Posted by: GeneMBridges at October 28, 2005 08:53 PM

Thanks for your viewpoint. Perhaps my position has been misconstrued, misunderstood, or miscommunicated, but it remains unchanged.

I can't see any scriptural reason for a born again Christian to observe the modern incarnation of this "holiday".

Folks here have posted a myriad of "reasons" to be sure, but most are simply carnal and dismissive.

Some at least attempt to place a scriptural twist on the Halloween, such as yourself, by suggesting it's an opportunity to share the gospel or meet one's neighbors.

In my opinion that's rather weak logic as why should we not do these things every day as we are commanded? I'm not attacking you, or condemning anyone who chooses to participate along with world, I just don't see it as "God's best".

It seems rather clear that we are not to be "unequally yoked together with unbelievers", many of which badge themselves as "Christian". We are to "come out from her" (spiritual Babylon) and follow that narrow road.

The world says "Join me and you'll fit in", but Christ says "Join me and you'll stand out".

Let us be lamps through which the light of the Lord can shine forth in a sick and dying world.

For some reason, in this thread at least, there are those who see partipation as harmless fun, and those who attempt to justify their participation as though their conscious were pricked by the truth.

In my view neither faction is right, yet each becomes apoplectic when its intransigent theories are challenged.

If any of the witless ripostes I've observed thus far are indicators, then unbearable cognitive dissonance is apparently generated in those who would claim Christ, yet trudge along with the world like so many carnal lapdogs.

63

For some reason, in this thread at least, there are those who see partipation as harmless fun, and those who attempt to justify their participation as though their conscious were pricked by the truth.

partipation = participation
conscious = conscience

64

Yawn. After all these years, I guess people still get some sort of internal frisson as they turn their flamethrowers on Jack Chick, who is a subject so boring, so ho-hum, so irksome, tedious, tiresome, wearisome, dull, and utterly passé that words simply fail to describe the banality of it all.

Really, the absolute best thing to do about Jack Chick is ignore him.

65

Soup, thank you for replying so candidly and cheerfully. I just have a couple of observations before letting this go, and I hope, in the process, you will consider "making waves" in your own Christian community in your home town to make Reformation Day a part of your church's life.

You wrote:

In my opinion that's rather weak logic as why should we not do these things every day as we are commanded? ...It seems rather clear that we are not to be "unequally yoked together with unbelievers", many of which badge themselves as "Christian". We are to "come out from her" (spiritual Babylon) and follow that narrow road.

Fair enough.

First, I would say logic is either logical or illogical, not "strong or weak." None of us that feel differently are suggesting that these aren't things we shouldn't do any other day. I, in particular, am basically saying, "This is one day of the year when you stand a chance of people coming to your door, why not make use of the door, if nothing else, and honor the day in church history itself?" It seems a bit, well, disrespectful of the day not to use it evangelistically if you can. Justification by faith was, after all, the crux of the Reformation.

In fact, I would suggest that it is not at all a "scriptural twist" on Halloween at all to reclaim it as Reformation Day, when many of the Reformed Baptist, Presbyterian (PCA, OPC, EPC, RPC, dunno about USA), Dutch and Protestant Reformed and Lutheran churches will, in point of fact, be holding Reformation Sunday worship celebrations on Sunday anyway. My church will. That's why I used that as a specific example. It has a historic precedent and simply is being ignored by most Christians these days. That's bothersome, at least to me, because, as a Reformed Christian, I'm looking forward to this day almost as much as Resurrection Sunday and Christmas. Instead of striving with our brothers over Halloween, we simply reply, when this discussion arises, "Yes, we should celebrate on Oct. 31, because God began something marvelous on that day!" In our modern Christian pop culture we've forgotten this.

In fact, Reformation Day is an important church festival that is celebrated on the last Sunday in October by Christians all over the world. In some countries, it is an official holiday. Protestant Christians give thanks to God on this day for the opportunity to lead lives of faith, instead of lives of fear.

That's what makes it important to celebrate on Oct. 31 in the US, in my opinion. You are right, the imagery the world presents is largely one of great fear, and that is why I don't approve of participation in Halloween myself. However, the Reformation was a time of great grace, strength, and especially courage. The contrast between that and the imagery of the US celebration of Halloween could not be more stark. They promote, by and large, fear, darkness, etc. We promote faith, courage, hope, and grace by remembering the Reformation.

Working to reclaim this day in your own community also draws attention to the fact that we Christians have been the ones to lose sight of our own history in this country. We have, I think you'll agree, largely neglected it. Let's be candid: the knowledge of church history in most churches goes back to most people's grandparents. If more of us collectively did something distinctively Christian on the same day, we would at least be provided an alternative. While churches celebrate on Sundays; I personally believe, because of the way Halloween has been treated in this nation, Christians, rather than sitting at home and complaining and bickering among each other about "Halloween Alternative: Yes or No?" we'd do better to gather ourselves together at church for a fellowship meal and worship on October 31 itself and create something truly Christian that's not a hybrid of cultural Halloween and Christianity at all, which is what those alternatives have become. To me, that is the epitome of following the narrow road and taking what Jesus says, "Join me and you'll stand out," openly and seriously.

Since October 31 is Reformation Day itself, and many of us to observe it already, it's not as if we are inventing a new holiday, and it amounts to participating in reforming the church. The thing is you have to get a group to do it to really pull it off. Seriously, at least get a Luther Rose (http://www.sundayschoollessons.com/luthros.htm) and put it on your door, if not this year, since it's so late, then next year. You don't have to participate in Halloween, but participate in Reformation Day on the day in some way. It's not a twist on a cultural practice, it's a real day in history that is already recognized on the calendars. If more people would do that, then we could put aside the controversy about what should Christians do or not do, by remembering what God began in 1517. Semper Reformanda!

66

Soup,

By the way, in reading through this thread, and all of your postings, I have never sensed a "snotty" or condescending attitude. I have not taken offense to anything that you have written. IMO, you are merely participating in a discussion, a civil debate, and are presenting your viewpoints.

When I was at Bible college, one of my favorite things was to gather with others in the hallway on my floor and get into a good, healthy debate about various issues of the faith, non-essential to salvation.

The majority of us could disagree passionately, while staying focused on the issue, and not take it personally. At the end of the discussion, we could still disagree and fellowship with one another. Unfortunately, there were always a few who would become dogmatically indignant, and walk off in a huff. From what I've read, I would definitely put you in the former category, not the latter.

We are commanded to make the most of every opportunity, for the days are evil. Halloween is no exception.

I, for one, would appreciate it if we could stay focused on the issue of discussing the best way to make the most of this opportunity, and refrain from any personal digs against others who have posted. "Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, so that it will give grace to those who hear." (Eph 4:29)

67

with all this obsessing over chick tracs, and yes i was sbujected to them too and i am glad the the right-wing 2005 xians have gotten over the fear of hell leads to salvation thing, what is the verdict on halloween?

i wasn't allowed to 'do' halloween. we were shuffled out of the house for a long dinner or something at the church. what is the verdict for 2005 holy people?

i find it interesting the christmas and easter are also tradtionally pagan holidays, but xians and clever consumer marketing (is there really a difference between the two?) have somehow turned them from the gulttonous, pagan orgies that they were into happy 'god' times with santa claus (feasting and overeating) and easter bunnies (hmm... fertility?). halloween seems to have stayed evil enough that not even hallmark cards wants to touch it.

why all the trepidation? is it really taht un-nerving that there are people interesting in the occult, wicca, and all things not 'in the bible?' or maybe they are kids who want to dress up and have fun. yes, fun, the three letter word. they must all be in blue states.

68

Posted by: genembridges at October 28, 2005 10:33 PM

Again, thank you for your viewpoint. I can see that you have considered the matter deeply and I appreciate you taking the time to share.

Posted by: alienandstranger at October 29, 2005 08:11 AM

Thank you for actually making the effort required to discern the nature of my posts. I was a bit taken aback by some of the earlier bomb throwers from the peanut gallery, but since I am new here I was unsure if these folks were trolls or regulars.

When I visit a new site I usually take a "wait and see" approach before responding to unprovoked frontal assaults.

I appreciate your intellectual honesty.

69

Joe,

Thanks for the links. The articles are interesting indeed, yet one question I find myself asking as the case is made that the "bad" stuff is all a very late addition to our cultural observance of Oct. 31st is, "but then why was this stuff added?"

I'll grant that H'ween is a hodge-podge. But I honestly don't think that the "pagan" factor can be written off so easily. I've posted a comment to David Wayne's Halloween post">http://jollyblogger.typepad.com/jollyblogger/2005/10/halloween_schma_1.html#comments">post in which I offered a quote from Barry Cunliffe, Professor of European Archaeology at U. of Oxford.

Of course there is scholarly dispute over just about everything, so maybe his assumption that Halloween derives from Samhain is wrong. And the case can be made that ancient practices have no relation to present-day ones, obviously. Yet, if one does this, then one must explain why the essence of practices of a segment of our ancestry disappeared and then...came back again. I'd venture to say that All Saint's Day is the vehicle, not the origin; syncretism has always existed in the church (and does to this day.) Not everyone abandoned their false practices for the Church, either, now or ever. And American ancestry is largely European; this can't be denied.

Anyway, I just think there are too many questions that probably can't even be resolved with the best of lifetime scholarship to just brush off the issue of Halloween's questionable origins.

70

In fact, I would suggest that it is not at all a "scriptural twist" on Halloween at all to reclaim it ...

It's very ironic since it was never anything but a Christian day to begin with! There's no need to 'reclaim it'.

Yet, if one does this, then one must explain why the essence of practices of a segment of our ancestry disappeared and then...came back again. I'd venture to say that All Saint's Day is the vehicle, not the origin; syncretism has always existed in the church (and does to this day.) Not everyone abandoned their false practices for the Church, either, now or ever. And American ancestry is largely European; this can't be denied.

there's a better reason, IMO. The human mind gravitates towards marking time off in years (logical in any agricultural society). Marking time off implies repeating milestones whether they be a 'winter festivle' or your 'year end review' at work. Some dates scream out as good times for a holiday. The beginning of spring/summer (right before you have all the work to do planting the upcoming crop...and you're hopeful of course)... fall when you've finished harvesting & now hopefully you can enjoy your work. Winter 'cause its cold and dull & you need something to break the boredom.... etc.

Whether the society is Christian or pagan it deals with these psychological needs of humans hence holidays are created for around those times. It's silly to think they are a product of anything else. The Bible doesn't say celebrate Christ's birth every year and it certainly doesn't say he was born on Dec. 26!

You're going to find 'connections' between all current holidays and the older ones from more ancient religions. Nevertheless, having fun at halloween doesn't make one pagan no matter what the holiday's origins anymore than Larry opening up a christmas card will make Larry Christian!

Anyway, I just think there are too many questions that probably can't even be resolved with the best of lifetime scholarship to just brush off the issue of Halloween's questionable origins.

Quite frankly I think you need to get a life. Understand a few facts:

1. Pagan religions are part of our heritage just as much as Christianity is. The names of our days and months were set by Roman pagans. Our literary heritage derives from the pagan religions of Greece and Rome.

2. Pagan religion was no more evil than any other religion. From a Christian perspective, pagan religions were man's attempt to understand the universe and God without the aid of revelation. While they clearly were not the whole truth they did grasp some essential truths that were available to man without the aid of revelation.

3. More importantly, what we think of as the occult, witchcraft, satanism is really an offshoot of Christianity. Some Christians applied some devious logic to some Christian rituals. For example, if the mass was a celebration of life then maybe death could be brought on enemies if elements were reversed...hence the 'Black Mass'. Needless to say all you need is a greedy priest and some ignorant people with a few coins and you have the makings of a pseudo-religion in your mists. The risk of the occult, however, has nearly always been greatly exagerrated by Christians. Need I remind you of the 1980's when serious people ran around seriously believing that up to 40,000 babies a year were breed and killed in service of 'satanists'?

71

Joe:

Thanks for the post. Judging from the comments alone, it seems Halloween is one of those holidays on which the opinions of Christians are quite divided.

The day is perhaps an innocent diversion to some, an occasion for dressing up in costume, eating candy, having fun. Yet in America it is a holiday that has associations with the evil side of life-- for example, at this time of year all the TV networks bring out the horror movies and films dealing with the occult-- obviously because being frightened and spooked is associated with Halloween.

The holiday may have Christian roots, as one poster commented, or perhaps it is more pagan in origin. I suppose that if one as a Christian has given the matter some thought and prayed about it and then decided that they can celebrate the holiday in good conscience, that's fine. I like dressing up in costume and so in the past, I have enjoyed going to costume parties on Halloween. The parties were not at all "ghoulish", although some people might have dressed up as ghosts or something sinister.

Having had personal experiences with the reality of spiritual warfare since then, I have more questions and reservations now about the nature of Halloween. I don't want to inadvertently celebrate a day that in any way gives glory to Satan or demons.

I agree that unreasonable fear (or obsession) with Satan is unhealthy, but respect for the reality of the satanic realm is healthy and wise.

The world in its ignorance may enjoy the thrill of being scared by Hollywood versions of satanic activity, but satanic evil is far more subtle and yet far more horrible than what is portrayed in such movies. I don't think Christians should dismiss this lightly, but rather should resolve to be armed with biblical insight about the nature of such warfare. It is because of my own experiences in this area that I have some hesitations about Halloween. However, I would only caution fellow believers to consider whether they in good conscience can celebrate the day to bring glory to God, and not cause others to stumble.

72

Hey Soup: My turn to apologize. I just decided to go back and reread your comments, which I found "snotty" a couple of nights back. For the life of me I can't figure why they ticked me off so much at the time. I must have temporarily lapsed into some sort of sensitive male mode. Or maybe I could blame it on Bush; that seems to work for so many people.

Anyway, I'm sorry.

73

For the life of me I can't figure why they ticked me off so much at the time. I must have temporarily lapsed into some sort of sensitive male mode.

Perhaps it was his defense of Chick's anti-catholicism? Ok, if you want to believe you have the ticket to heaven and Catholics only have an express ticket to hell that's fine but does bearing false witness still apply? Chick has asserted the following, do you want to add your name as believing the below charges:

1. That the Catholic Church created the Islamic religion as a tool to kill the Jews.

2. That the Catholic Church arranged the Holocaust.

3. that the name of every prostestant church member is kept in a Vatican computer system to aid in persecution at some future point.

Larry, of course, isn't allowed to even snicker at a Christian without being called a bigot but look at the great lengths some will go to defend someone against even the most well founded of charges.

74

I appreciate the discussion and the original post. I'm new to the board, so after seeing some of the Chick graphics, I realized I remember seeing a few when I was a kid. Thankfully, not much, and I wasn't permanently scarred as apparently others were.

Anyway, as a pastor, my sermon tomorrow morning--finishing touches keeping me up late--is built on 1 John 4:1, that we are to "test the spirits to see whether they are from God."

Mostly, I'm trying to get people to at least question what they're doing and why they're doing it. What mixed messages they may be sending in their costumes and decorations.

We teach a spiritual commitment to Christ and a resisting of the devil--yet for one day (or month) we encourage our kids to dabble in occult related themes--witches crashed on the walls, psycho murderers, demonic masks, etc.

Under other circumstances, we'd tell our kids to stay away from that stuff--but for Halloween too many of us unquestioningly go along with it.

Would it be appropriate for us to say, "don't play with matches" but for one day a year say--"here kid, here's a box of 200 and some kindling. It's all in fun."

Are we mixing our messages by reasoning from the Scripture that the demonic is not harmless, but for one day we'll package it up in cute cartoon characters and dabble in it?

Even non-Christians are raising some concerns. I found this article yesterday.

http://www.livescience.com/history/051027_halloween_fright.html

I finish with Philippians 4:8--rather than death, rather than horror, or anything else, think on the things that are good.

If nothing else, let's not go unquestioningly into the night.

75

Anyway, I'm sorry.

Posted by: Jim Gilbert at October 30, 2005 12:26 AM

Thank you, no problem.

does bearing false witness still apply?
Posted by: Boonton at October 30, 2005 01:08 AM

Perhaps you should answer your own query.

Where did I "defend Chick's anti-catholicism"?

The closest example I can find is:

"anti-Catholic bigot"? Are you suggesting that Catholics are actually somehow capable of working their way into heaven? Or that perhaps "Mary Queen of Heaven" is co-redemptrix with Christ?/i>

I don't believe anyone can work their way to heaven.

I don't believe there is any name given by which men must be saved but Jesus Christ.

I believe the only way to go to heaven (not go to hell) is believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved by His grace.

If that makes me a bigot, so be it.

Upon review of your harsh 11:11 p.m. response to Bonnie it would seem that you are among the most prolific bomb-throwers present.

Glad to meet you, I have guessed your name.

76

soup,

the catholic church does not believe you can work your way to heaven, but going to heaven does require work nor does it deny that Christ is the key to heaven.

Let's look more closely at your first post:

It's unfortunate that so many posters here were "emotionally scarred" by Jack Chick's cartoon images as children. Yet I'd suggest hell is a lot scarier than Jack Chick's silly cartoons.

Implicit here is that Chick's cartoons are worthwhile in that they may keep people from hell. My question then remains, isn't false witness relevant? Can Chick tracks really be good if they reak of false witness?

"70's fundie logic"? Surely you're aware that ad hominem is the first resort of the intellectually dishonest? Or perhaps you're suggesting that there is something wrong with a fundamental (literal) belief in scripture

"anti-Catholic bigot"? Are you suggesting that Catholics are actually somehow capable of working their way into heaven? Or that perhaps "Mary Queen of Heaven" is co-redemptrix with Christ?

Who accused you of being an anti-Catholic bigot? No one since this was your first post you obviously were objecting to someone else being called a bigot. Who? Mr. Chick is the only person who was accused and he wasn't accused because he disagrees with Catholic theology.

77

Boonton, thanks for the advice.

All I'm saying is let's have a little intellectual honesty about the origins of Halloween. You seem awfully sure of your "facts," yet what are your proofs?

Your response that recurrence of corruption of All Hallow's Eve has to do with agricultural patterns is anachronistic -- hardly applicable to American life in general in the 20th century.

Regarding your point #1: of course pagan religions are part of our heritage, that's my point! Therefore does it follow that we must carry them on, especially the portions that are dishonoring to God?

Your point #2, "Pagan religion was no more evil than any other religion," is false!

Your point #3, "the occult is an offshoot of Christianity," is also untrue. Deuteronomy 18 speaks pretty clearly against spiritistic abomination, and it way predates Christ.

Alex Jordan -- thanks for your comment. Your thoughts echo my own.

78

"Your response that recurrence of corruption of All Hallow's Eve has to do with agricultural patterns is anachronistic -- hardly applicable to American life in general in the 20th century."

Actually I think I didn't express this very well. There are certain times of the year that are better times for a Holiday than others. It isn't an accident, IMO, that some Holidays cluster in the fall (Halloween, Thanksgiving etc.), one big one in Winter and some in spring. Now the nature of these holidays and what they are celebrating will vary from culture to culture and religion to religion but since there's some times that are more natural for holidays you are going to see them picked for a holiday and there will be 'connections' as a society alters its culture.

So, for example, when a society shifts from pagan to Christian you will see Christian Holidays established around the time of the old popular pagan ones. It hardly follows that the Christian Holidays are really pagan ones anymore that it follows that going to church on Sunday is worshipping a Sun God.

Regarding #3, I should have said that the occult is an offshoot of Judeo-Christianity...although the occult really got going in more modern times. This is probably a function of mass media and cheap communications that made it easy for people to set themselves up as having some type of mysterious knowledge. Many elements of the occult, though, are mirror images of Christian imagy....for example treating Halloween as a pagan holiday is clearly an example. If Christianity didn't exist neither would Halloween. Of course there were holidays celebrated in the October time frame but they weren't Halloween.

Regarding #1 I have not seen any case that Halloween dishonors God. Is dressing up in costums dishonoring God? I don't see any particular reason why donning whimisical outfits is any different than, say, football uniforms, prom dresses or 15th century tights for men. I do think it is silly, though, to try to abolish pagan roots of our culture as if they had nothing of value.

Regarding #2, there is no 'pagan religion' so we can't really say one way or the other. I cannot consult any summary of pagan theology or scripture because pagan is really a catchall for many different religions that circulated before Christianity that never really hit it big like Hinduism, Buddahism and others. As such I think neither of us can really articulate much of anything since neither of us has any real reference point.

79

I applaud your bravery in criticizing the hack religion of Jack Chick tracts. His tract against evolution contains more errors per panel than anything outside the Communist Manifesto. It's embarrassing.

80

I'm glad Bonnie came along, and I agree with her against Boonton. It's no accident that All Souls' Day was on 1 Nov, put there to *counter* the older pagan rituals about the dying of the year and the *fear* of this, which still had a hold on people in northern climes.
Today, with the waning of true Christian belief and memory, the occultists and the New Age are using Halloween as THEIR day again right under our noses.
There's no doubt a lot of media emphasises unChristian horror [note The Simpsons for one].
In Australia our supposedly secular elementary schools schedule whole weeks of *fun preparation* for the littlies -with ghost stories and ghouls a major feature, but NO emphasis on the Christian history at all.
So the aim is just to sell things and scare the kids with a 'culture' which has NOT been traditional in our country until we started to follow the US commercially. Thanks for nothing!
It's another dubious US export, and I for one don't see anything harmless about it. Kids have enough horror to cope with.
Joe's reference to Chick unfortunatley skewed this whole debate towards trivialising an advancing, resurgent Western paganism.

81

Implicit here is that Chick's cartoons are worthwhile in that they may keep people from hell.

In my view anything that might give folks pause about their eternal destination is worthwhile. Even if Jack Chick is evil incarnate, God can use evil to work to His good purposes.

Who accused you of being an anti-Catholic bigot? No one since this was your first post you obviously were objecting to someone else being called a bigot. Who? Mr. Chick is the only person who was accused and he wasn't accused because he disagrees with Catholic theology.

You're correct, no one accused me of being an anti-Catholic bigot. In my experience those who attempt to point to the truth of scripture and expose the false teachings of the RCC are quickly pounced upon and branded as "bigots" which is of course, absurd.

82

I'm glad Bonnie came along, and I agree with her against Boonton. It's no accident that All Souls' Day was on 1 Nov, put there to *counter* the older pagan rituals about the dying of the year and the *fear* of this, which still had a hold on people in northern climes.

Indeed, it happens that Oct-Nov is a good time for a Holiday.

Today, with the waning of true Christian belief and memory, the occultists and the New Age are using Halloween as THEIR day again right under our noses.

First of all who are you talking about? New Agers and occultists, for the most part, have barely enough organization to light a candle let alone take over a culture. They have no real theology and their philsophy is a bunch of contradictions and light hearted beliefs. I know New Agers, they are the ultimate in shallow dabblers...one day prattling on about Egypt the next ghosts and so on.

Joe's reference to Chick unfortunatley skewed this whole debate towards trivialising an advancing, resurgent Western paganism.

'Advancing, resurgent' in what sense? How are you measuring it? I see no evidence that New Agers are advancing in any serious sense. Or are you using some type of broader definition of paganism to include things like 'consumerism'?

There's no doubt a lot of media emphasises unChristian horror [note The Simpsons for one].
In Australia our supposedly secular elementary schools schedule whole weeks of *fun preparation* for the littlies -with ghost stories and ghouls a major feature, but NO emphasis on the Christian history at all.

Horror is unChristian? First of all the ghost stories & such came not from new agers but from Christians themselves. As noted before it was part of the Holiday as a way to mock evil...not unlike a prep rally that mocks the opposing team. But let's take a simple stock figure from the world of horror, the Vampire. To be honest you sound more like a snob, looking down on those of us who enjoy scarey stories (in moderate doses of course) and labeling your own tastes as Christian (therefore the opposite is unchristian).

Two of the best vampire stories ever written were Anne Rice's Interview with the Vampire and Queen of the Dammed. In the second book her vampire narrator stumbles upon a group of vampires living in the Paris sewers and cemetaries. Guess what, they are Christians! Not Christian in the sense they are evangelicals but in the sense that they all believe in the Christian religion therefore they believe they must be dammed and servents of Satan and have invented all types of rituals (all based on Catholic rituals, not original ones). The narrator, a creature of the Enl