Religious Holidays, Christmas, and Why I don't Celebrate Them

This time of year is always exciting. I'll admit that for myself and my family, it is so for a very different reason than for most people. What it always brings is a set of question and confusion.
Neither I, nor my family, nor my church celebrate religious holidays. Of course, this stance is reasonably uncommon today, which is what prompts the confusion that I mentioned.
In order to help others with understanding this position and to promote civil conversation and learning; I wanted to explain why we believe this way.

I have previously dealt with aspects of Easter and how it doesn't match the biblical account in either the traditional timing of its events (here) and in one of its most common Protestant observances, the Sunrise Service (here). There are other aspects of Easter in particular that I haven't gone into.

This time I want to cover the general topic of holidays as well as addressing Christmas in particular.

For those who want a TL;DR, it's pretty simple.
I do not participate in religious holidays, such as Easter and Christmas, due to their Pagan and Catholic roots. Their practice isn't found in scripture and the elements in them as well as their history are directly against scripture.

The Problem of Tradition

Tradition is a very powerful force. All too often it binds people into patterns and actions with no real consideration into why things are done in that manner. Some traditions are so pervasive within their particular circles that they are not even noticed.

Within the New Testament, especially within the ministry of Jesus, a spotlight was constantly placed on the way that tradition controlled so much of what the Jews of that time thought of as the worship of God. One of the purposes of the Sermon on the Mount was the correct the way that their tradition was followed rather than the intent that God had placed upon His words. Their traditions both increased and decreased the scope of the law of God. They increased His law by adding in their traditions with the same power as those things God commanded.They decreased His law in order to keep their pet sins by avoiding the spirit of the law for mere letter.

A great example is found in Matthew 15:1-11, in which the Pharisees confront Jesus about His disciples not washing their hands before eating. Jesus pays no heed to the "traditions of the elders" that they are saying is so important (because it isn't scripture), and instead points out that one of their other traditions is in clear violation of God's word (claiming to not have resources to help one's own parents because all of your good are pledged to God). Jesus didn't care about their "well-intentioned" traditions.

The point of this aside is two-fold. 

• First: is to show how "good and well-meaning traditions" can very easily be not only absent from God's word, but against it entirely.
• Second: any and all traditions must be treated as suspect, so all should be considered in light of God's word. 

If you have never considered or looked into religious holidays and their basis as Christian tradition (and even if you have); it is your Christian duty to examine that tradition rather than merely accepting it. Do not merely let things be as they have been because of tradition, but verify if the tradition has merit.

Religious Holidays

I understand that all of this will provoke a lot of feelings. The act of even discussing these matters combats generations of tradition, family gatherings, and a sense of doing something that is supposed to be pleasing to God. There have been untold numbers of campaigns by well-meaning people to emphasize the religious aspects of these days while people as a whole drain them away. People are deeply invested.

I acknowledge all of that for the sake of telling you that I do not make light of this situation at all. I get what is at stake. While I personally have never celebrated any of these events, I see the effect that they have on other people. I have had these conversations with others before, including my wife who grew up participating in them.

However, if we are going to discuss what it means to be a Christian, there is only one source for what that means, and that is scripture. Knowledge of Christ and His religion, and how He wants us to live only comes from the Bible (Isaiah 8:20). Our feelings, and by that I mean both yours and mine, mean nothing in comparison to the word of God.

Regulative Principle

The most central point as to why we don't observe religious holidays is that of their absence from scripture. As just stated, we know about what God wants from His people based on our reading and understanding of His word. Additionally, scripture affirms to us that everything that we need (as far as living a life pleasing to God) can be found within it as well.

If we have all we need from scripture, why would we need to add something else that isn't already there?

This idea has been called by some the "Regulative Principle of Worship," and has both historic and scriptural support.

Historic Support 

I will immediately acknowledge that examples of history on this topic are the much less important part of the discussion. The "antiquity" of a belief does not in any way make it truth. The fact that a stance was widespread in the past means equally little when it comes to verifying if it is correct.

However, one of the most frequent responses I have received on this topic is shock that anyone would ever think in the manner that I am describing. That response is usually followed by wondering if this is some new belief.

The answer to that is that the regulative principle has been used in general, and applied to religious holidays repeatedly throughout history, and was widespread in many Protestant and essentially all Baptist groups until the 1800s.

This stance is far from new. For some, such as Presbyterians and Baptists, the practice of Christmas has been far shorter than their opposition to it.

John Calvin and (at times) the Protestants of Geneva opposed Christmas. For a period of the celebration of Christmas  was illegal within Geneva, along with any other "feasts" or "saints days." Christmas was just considered to be another part of the list of such Catholic days. Calvin himself stated that he opposed such a legal standard, but made his personal thoughts on the topic clear. Even when the policy in Geneva changed and Calvin was required to preach Christmas sermons, he still expressed his thoughts.

A simple quote from Calvin on the topic of the regulative principle, which directly applies on religious holidays and Christmas:

I know how difficult it is to persuade the world that God disapproves of all modes of worship not expressly sanctioned by His Word. The opposite persuasion which cleaves to them, being seated, as it were, in their very bones and marrow, is, that whatever they do has in itself a sufficient sanction, provided it exhibits some kind of zeal for the honor of God. But since God not only regards as frivolous, but also plainly abominates, whatever we undertake from zeal to His worship, if at variance with His command, what do we gain by a contrary course? The words of God are clear and distinct, "Obedience is better than sacrifice." "In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men," 1 Sam. 15:22; Matt. 15:9. Every addition of His word, especially in this matter, is a lie. Mere "will worship" (ethelothreeskia) is vanity [Col. 2:23]. This is the decision, and when once the judge has decided, it is no longer time to debate.

I appreciate Calvin's statement here, because he is attempting to make the same point that I am. He freely speaks of knowing the challenge of overcoming the good feelings that many have in embracing their traditions, though they don't match God's word. He further answers the common response of "they may not be in scripture, but there's nothing wrong with adding them." His statement is that they are not merely unneeded (frivolous) but also God is displeased with them (abominates).
There are other quotes that could be added to this previous one, but the content in them is very dense and might require additional explanation as well as Calvin's rather strong wit and forceful manner might bring offense that I do not want to cause.
I will simply point you to an excerpt from Calvin's sermon on December 25, 1551; which was part of his sermon series through Micah. Just understand that the language there is his own, so if you don't like his tone, that is entirely on him. Also note the wonders of state religion. He mocks the idea of special days to honor any particular event, but has to acknowledge that he will do so anyway based on what is required by Geneva.

John Calvin was far from the only one to have such a stance on holidays. The leader of the Scottish reformed church (which became the Presbyterians), John Knox, stated the regulative principle as well and applied it directly to religious holidays. As part of writings Knox and others put forward in 1560, these lines can be seen:

Lest upon this our generality ungodly men take occasion to cavil, this we add for explication. By preaching of the Evangel, we understand not only the Scriptures of the New Testament, but also of the Old; to wit, the Law, Prophets, and Histories, in which Christ Jesus is no less contained in figure, than we have him now expressed in verity. And, therefore, with the Apostle, we affirm that "all Scripture inspired of God is profitable to instruct, to reprove, and to exhort." In which Books of Old and New Testaments we affirm that all things necessary for the instruction of the Kirk, and to make the man of God perfect, are contained and sufficiently expressed.

By contrary Doctrine, we understand whatsoever men, by Laws, Councils, or Constitutions have imposed upon the consciences of men, without the expressed commandment of God's word: such as be vows of chastity, foreswearing of marriage, binding of men and women to several and disguised apparels, to the superstitious observation of fasting days, difference of meat for conscience sake, prayer for the dead; and keeping of holy days of certain Saints commanded by men, such as be all those that the Papists have invented, as the Feasts (as they term them) of Apostles, Martyrs, Virgins, of Christmas, Circumcision, Epiphany, Purification, and other fond feasts of our Lady. Which things, because in God's scriptures they neither have commandment nor assurance, we judge them utterly to be abolished from this Realm; affirming further, that the obstinate maintainers and teachers of such abominations ought not to escape the punishment of the Civil Magistrate.

For simple explanation; scripture alone (Old and New Testaments) is sufficient for everything a Christian needs. In contrast, anything added to Christianity by any act of man from outside of scriptures should not be observed. He threw in the idea of civil punishment for good measure as well.
Notice that Christmas is thrown into the same list as vows of celibacy, feasting for Mary, and veneration for saints. He clearly states these are all inventions of Catholics.
When James VI of Scotland became James I of England as well, he determined that he preferred the doctrines and methods of Anglicanism and demanded a modification of the church of Scotland's doctrine to restore various feasts and other practices, including those of feasts. There was firm opposition to this within Scotland and multiple ministers there wrote against the restoration of extra-biblical practices, including Christmas.

While many more are aware of the Puritan opposition to religious holidays, it is worth it to examine their thinking and statements. There is a misconception that the Puritans were one specific group and united in doctrine, but this is not the case. The title applies to various groups with varied doctrines, but one of the essential parts of their beliefs was the concern over extra-biblical observances being added to the actions of their churches. Some of their concerns stemmed from an effort to bring back in more of the Catholic practices that the Anglican and other churches had previously abolished (led by the Counter-Reformers of the Jesuits). The things they objected to included golden crosses and candlesticks in churches, stained glass, ritualistic practices, and many other things.
When it came to religious holidays, their contentions were that: only the days that God selected Himself were sanctified, celebration of days not mentioned in scripture is superstition and leads to more superstition, and that holidays would take away from or supersede the importance of normal worship of God on Sundays. Multiple Puritans wrote on the topic of holidays.
Upon the Puritans (and Presbyterians) coming into power in Parliament of England in 1647, they passed a law abolishing all religious holidays, including both Christmas and Easter. Here's the act of Parliament:

Forasmuch as the feast of the nativity of Christ, Easter, Whitsuntide, and other festivals, commonly called holy-days, have been heretofore superstitiously used and observed; be it ordained, that the said feasts, and all other festivals, commonly called holy-days, be no longer observed as festivals; any law, statute, custom, constitution, or canon, to the contrary in anywise not withstanding.

It should be noted that the church in Scotland, to this point bound to observe the rules established by James, celebrated this.
In case you thought this was only an old-fashioned idea, Scotland didn't recognize Christmas as a national holiday until 1958, which reflects their ongoing antipathy toward it.

Scriptural Support

Scripture has a whole lot to say on the topic of adding, removing, or changing the commands that God gives. And any list of references may be partial in their number, since such collections are often larger.

He considers changing his commands by going either to the right or left, away from His specified direction as something you shouldn't do (Deut 5:32, 28:14, and Joshua 1:7).
He further has problems with things being added to or taken away from His commands and words (Deut 12:32 and Rev 22:18-19).
God specifically forbids taking Pagan practice and adding it into His worship (Deut 12:29-31, II Cor 6:14-18).
Scripture itself states that it gives all that is needed to be profitable and have the good works that God desires (II Tim 3:16-17). That being the case, wouldn't we find not only mention of religious holidays but instructions on how do do them properly, if they were part of the good works God expects?

Again, one of the most common responses to the points of this discussion is that God does not care to this level about how we practice His religion. He sees intent and desire and is satisfied enough with this. Phrases like "nit-picking" come up from people when discussing this.
However, scripture paints an entirely different picture than this. In both Old and New Testaments He showcases His thoughts on these things by how He responds when people, even those with good intentions, deviate from His prescribed method of worship.
Just for the sake of a few examples:
In Leviticus 10:1-7 we get the story of Nadab and Abihu. What is notable is that they were the right men (sons of Aaron and priests), in the right place (the Tabernacle), coming to the right God, but He killed them because they wanted to come with some variation on the sacrifice that He didn't want ("strange fire"). Their intent isn't given, but all of the aspects other than what they tried to offer were good, but still rejected by Him. He didn't take it lightly at all. He not only slew them but ordered Aaron and his sons to not even mourn for them because of their holy office.
We can see a similar example in the life of David. The first time he tried to move the Ark, things didn't go well. II Samuel 6:1-10 describes the event and how God ended it unhappily. Almost everything was right again. The right people (priests) were trying to move the Ark, their desire was to bring God's Ark back for better worship, and they were celebrating in a great spirit, the man who touched the Ark even did so for the sake of protecting it from harm (and was of the right family). Yet again, God struck someone dead. The reason this time was because instead of moving the Ark on the shoulders of the priests, as God had said, they built a special new cart to move it. All of the issues stemmed from not following God's specific method, and the cost was a life and shame for David.
This is far from being only an Old Testament event. Acts 5:1-11 describes how Ananias and Sapphira lied as part of their giving and died because of it. Looking at the terms though, they were giving to the right men (the Apostles), for the purpose of the right God, for the good of others. They didn't even do anything wrong in only giving part of the money, but in the fact that they lied about it. That little aberration was sufficient to merit their passing.
The point is that God does very much care about the little things. He doesn't consider something as small as one little change, even if well-intended, as too minor to care about. 

So, from both the aspect of historic stances and from the Bible, there is evidence to support the Regulative Principle, in particular to its application on religious holidays.  

Christmas

After covering the general principles of the worship of God and how they apply to religious holidays, it's time to get down to the matter of Christmas itself and its own history and scriptural standing.

Historic Support

To this point I have primarily focused on the historic opposition to religious holidays in general, but now will move more specifically to the facts of Christmas: how it came to be, what its traditions are, and the opposition to it in particular.

The Roots of Christmas
The points here don't have to be gone into with too much detail, because we live in the Internet age when you can find out all about these things yourself in a matter of moments. In fact, many of these things are already widespread knowledge among Christians, just ignored.

• Christmas's timing
• Close to a major astrological event, the Winter Solstice.
• Numerous Pagan festivals and holidays exist at this same time. Several focus on how the time is that of a rebirth of the Sun, which works nicely when you make it about the birth of a Son instead. Events such as Saturnalia and even Yule (a word that you might know because it is still associated with Christmas) were large existing celebrations within the boundaries of Rome and eventually the European extension of the Roman Catholic church.
• Catholic practice, where possible, was to co-opt the existing practices and festivals in order to appeal to new areas.
  Here's a quote on that from Pope Gregory to an abbot in England in 606:

The temples of the idols among the people should on no account be destroyed. The idols themselves are to be destroyed, but the temples themselves are to be aspersed with holy water, altars set up in them, and relics deposited there. For if these temples are well-built, they must be purified from the worship of demons and dedicated to the service of the true God. In this way, we hope that the people, seeing that their temples are not destroyed, may abandon their error and, flocking more readily to their accustomed resorts, may come to know and adore the true God. And since they have a custom of sacrificing many oxen to demons, let some other solemnity be substituted in its place, such as a day of Dedication or Festivals of the holy martyrs whose relics are enshrined there. On such occasion they might well construct shelters of boughs for themselves around the churches that were once temples, and celebrate the solemnity with devout feasting.

• Christmas Traditions
• Evergreen trees have long been associated with Pagan practice.
• Particularly the already mentioned Yule had such involved.
• Even the practice of cutting down certain odoriferous evergreen trees or boughs was long a practice of some more northern Pagan groups during Winter.
• Exchanges of gifts, lighting candles, and large public merriment were all part of Saturnalia.
• Ever notice how different nations and countries have different things they do and different looks and roles for Christmas characters, or completely different sets, but still all part of Christmas? This is because those are pre-Catholic traditions that were adopted from their local cultures and rolled into the new "Christian" celebration.
• The Importance of Christmas
• Have you ever asked yourself why Christmas has such a large role? Does the emphasis of it as one of the most important days of the year really come from a scriptural standard?
• Never forget the name: Christ Mass. It is meant to be a Mass, and the specific Mass of Christ (since there are a lot of other Masses for other things and saints). It's very name tells you what it is: an act meant as part of a sacrament.
• Christmas has been treated as so important because of its Catholic setup. It's one of the two highest holy days in the year. You could be a Catholic and miss church often and most events, but you can't skip Christmas and Easter.
• While most Catholic feasts and fasts were dismissed by Protestants, that same desire to treat those two as special carried across, keeping them while the others were discarded.
• That spirit continues today; which is a reason why mentioning that you disagree with Christmas can and frequently does bring a lot of ire.
• Opposition to Christmas
• History easily shows areas like the Puritan colonies within the US and their opposition to Christmas.
• Visitors to their colonies wrote about seeing their total lack of observance
• Their laws regarding it are easily available
• Even in their own personal journals you can find their comments when confronted about it.
• The pivotal Revolutionary War battle of Trenton and the crossing of the Delaware River that happened before it took place on Christmas Day and the day after. In more modern wars, this kind of thing would be considered bad form, but the Americans didn't celebrate, so it wasn't a concern for them.
• Numerous Presbyterians, like R.L Dabney, and Samuel Miller recorded their opposition to Christmas. They did so in support of continued avoidance of it by Presbyterian churches.

Scriptural Support

• Nothing in the Bible indicates the birth of Jesus close to or on December 25th.
• One doesn't call for census and taxation in an agrarian society during the Winter (Luke 2:1-3).
• Shepherds aren't "abiding in the fields" with their sheep during the Winter (Luke 2:8). The sheep are safely in folds, which doesn't require the shepherds with them.
• C. H. Spurgeon (well known Baptist preacher from the 1800s) had a very mixed opinion on Christmas, sometimes speaking against it, sometimes for. However, on thing he was unequivocal on was the timing aspect.
  

  Probably the fact is that the “holy” days were arranged to fit in with the heathen festivals. We venture to assert, that if there be any day in the year, of which we may be pretty sure that it was not the day on which the Savior was born, it is the twenty-fifth of December.

• There is a lot said in the Bible against specific Pagan customs that are part of Christmas.
• The use of trees and tree derived objects for worship is flatly condemned.
• Jeremiah 10:1-4 covers several aspects of Christmas.
• It starts by stating that God's followers shouldn't emulate the practices of the heathen (v 1).
• It continues in disallowing practices associated with astrological events,like a Solstice (v 1).
• Then it goes on to describe cutting down a tree, taking it in, and decorating it. Yes, this could be simply the fashioning of an idol by carving the tree up, but there is precedent otherwise in history as well.
• Deuteronomy 12:1-4 describes the way the Jews were to destroy the places of worship of the Pagans they were replacing in Canaan, and part of that description was "under every green tree."
• You could take that phrase to refer to using trees to worship (there are multiple places that describe Pagan "groves").
• You could also look at the phrasing and see it as a specific use of evergreen trees as objects of worship.
• Further statements about "green trees" and "groves" can be found in I Kings 14:23, Isaiah 57:5, and Jeremiah 3:6.
• Worship of the sun, moon, and stars, are rejected as wrong.
• Job listed such things, which are found in special observances of them (like marking Solstices), as things worthy of judgement (Job 31:26-28).
• Ezekiel lists, in a chapter filled with a number of sins against God, the worst sin as worship of the sun (Ezekiel 8:16). This is of particular note because the date of one of the celebrations of Mithras (a Persian and Roman sun god) is December 25th as well.
• Christmas is associated with a number of lies.
• Santa Claus
• We all know he (and all of the other versions found in different cultures) is fake, but the continued use of this falsehood and how it is so intertwined with the practice of Christmas is an issue.
• His characterization is of an omniscient and almost omnipotent being, borderline a caricature of God.
• He is based on a Catholic Saint, in veneration of just another sinner (Romans 3:10).
• God expects us to teach and practice truth, and only truth, not superstition (John 4:23-24).
• Frequent misinformation regarding the scriptural event itself. Every year you will find articles written about popular non-biblical ideas that many people believe to be true.
• Were the wise men there for the birth? Nope.
• Was there a little drummer boy? No. Yes, I know it is silly, but the traditions cloud so much actual fact about it.

Additional Points

What about other holidays or similar events?

Hopefully I made it clear that the arguments and facts presented here are regarding religious things, but I waned to address this directly. There are groups that, along with what has already been discussed avoid any holidays or even birthdays. I wanted to clarify on this.

There is nothing in the Bible to condemn national holidays or birthdays. Instead, despite what some groups might say, there is evidence of them being observed by the righteous.

Job is noted as giving sacrifices for his children when they feasted on their days (Job 1:4-5). This sounds an awful lot like them celebrating their birthdays. Rather than oppose this or condemn it, as you would expect from a righteous man, you see Job use it as an opportunity to pray for them specifically. You also don't see it listed among his supposed crimes by his friends later in the book, which you would also expect from men who were in a rush to claim he had secret sin.

The Jews in the Book of Esther includes the creation of a new national celebration; Purim. Esther 9:26-28 shows the ordaining of the days of Purim as a national event to be permanently observed. This remembered the actions of God, but was not an actual religious ceremony. 

Jesus Himself participated in a national holiday by celebrating Hanukkah. Jesus was present for the "Feast of Dedication," an event in Winter. This isn't a feast that's found in Moses' law. The only thing that this can be, and there really isn't argument about this, is Hanukkah.

The fact that none of these events are actual religious ceremony and none of them are based on or involve Catholic or Pagan elements showcases that there can be events, even on a national level, that are worthy of celebration.

What about Romans 14:5-8?

 For reference:

⁵ One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
⁶ He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.
⁷ For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself.
⁸ For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's.

I have seen this passage, more specifically 5-6 used in response to the points above previously. The implication made is that it's fine for someone like me to not esteem Christmas, but that there is no reason to judge anyone who does, and vice versa. I included additional verses that are directly in application to the same thought for the sake of further context.
The issue is that in applying the verses as such, they lose all meaning. See, the whole point of this chapter, as is manifest in the rest of the verses included here (and the rest of the chapter) is to put to rest the issue of Jewish legalism within the church at Rome. The "days" being respected or not by these Christians are those of the Jewish ritual, not those of the various Pagan groups around them. Throughout the writings of Paul this issue is dealt with as a common problem within the New Testament church. This is further shown in the issue of "eating or eating not." It's a question of eating "unclean" things by Jewish rites, and now that doesn't matter to God. Paul is not writing to say it is OK to just celebrate anything, like various Roman festivals. Those are things that the believers clearly had already separated themselves from.
By applying this passage broadly to apply to any day to celebrate, you're left with it being possible to say that Paul would have excused participation in Pagan rites, and that just doesn't add up in either Testament. God isn't pleased with going and taking part of the celebration of Jupiter, Mars, or any other deity.

Conclusion

If you've made it to this point, thank you! I have rarely written something as long as this, but any topic with such strong feelings deserves some strong reasoning.

I hope that I have made some of the basics of my stance on these issues clear. I cannot with a clean conscience participate in religious holidays, and that includes Christmas. The weight of principle, history, and scripture is clear on this topic for me. I understand (due to having this conversation with many people over the years), that this may not be compelling enough for you to feel the same way. However, if this has made you stop, evaluate, and question the traditional stance on these matters or just tradition in general; my meager effort will have accomplished something worthwhile.

I welcome comments, questions, and discussion. As long as we can all be civil (and I know that hasn't happened every time in the past), I'd be happy to go into this. What has been written here is far from exhaustive.

Our 136

This morning, at church, Psalm 136 was presented.
For those of you not familiar, Psalm 136 is a list of God's deeds, both in general and specifically toward the people of Israel. This list is made up of short verses containing simple phrases describing events and a refrain of "for His mercies endureth forever."
Each action, both great and small in absolute sense, is entirely attributed to His mercies. Placing such an emphasis puts them all in the appropriate context: blessings that come from Him alone.

The man that presented the Psalm pointed out that the whole structure of it was for the purpose of recitation and response. One would mention the goodness of God and the rest would reply, acknowledging His hand.
So, it is fitting that we would be able to do the same with things in our own lives.
We were challenged as families to sit down and discuss what things were are similarly thankful for.

Here is the list compiled by the members of my family capable of reasoning (Samantha did not contribute).

He makes rainbows and sunsets for us to see and enjoy; for His mercies endureth forever.

He gives us love and family; for His mercies endureth forever.

He allowed us all to be born in America; for His mercies endureth forever.

He is always with us everywhere and in everything; for His mercies endureth forever.

He sees us and knows us fully and completely in a personal way; for His mercies endureth forever.

He gives us godly examples to learn from; for His mercies endureth forever.

He sent His word to the world, so we could know Him and about Him; for His mercies endureth forever.

He loved unworthy sinners; for His mercies endureth forever.

He sends rain on just and unjust; for His mercies endureth forever.

He changes our hearts to want to serve Him; for His mercies endureth forever.

It was a simple and fast exercise. It took us less than 30 minutes to produce this list. For anyone who knows God, this should be equally simple.

He deserves it; for His mercies endureth forever. 

Fatherhood

Fatherhood is one of the greatest privileges in the world, as well as one of the greatest responsibilities. It is a privilege because not all are able to experience it. It is a responsibility because it enables you to shape the lives of others in a way that is unique. It can easily be viewed as the most or second most important earthly task that you will ever have.

Today, at least in the US, we honor fathers. The question is: should we?

You see, fatherhood is both easy and not.
For most of the world, fatherhood is easy. Quite literally it takes nothing more than siring offspring. A merely biological function that is nearly identical to what many animals do. Congratulations! You have convinced a female to reproduce with you and carry that child to term.
To all too many, that's the end of it. They may or may not even stick around to see the consequences of their actions and know about their child at all.

The next step up is only more in the most simplistic way. Choosing to have a role in a child's life and to support them in food, clothing, and shelter is still little more than what many animals do. Lots of other male creatures help shelter and protect their young until they have developed the basic life skills to support themselves on their own. Raising and protecting a child, sending them to school to get an education and being equipped in reasonable form for the workplace is the human equivalent of a predator sharing their kills with their own offspring and teaching them the rudiments of hunting. It produces those who have the basic skills for life and can function.

If that's all that fatherhood is, it's a shame.
The problem is that such shame exists all around.
The repercussions of such fatherhood are damaged relationships, damaged people, and dysfunction. It is everywhere, and much of the fault belongs to the fathers.

There is another way!
The view that fatherhood is a privilege. The view that each child that we bring into this world is a unique, special soul that we have a responsibility toward. Not merely a responsibility to present to adulthood alive, reasonably healthy, and with the ability to support themselves; but instead an adult that has seen patterns of love, right decisions, and taught how to think properly, so that they are neither confused nor hopeless in this world.

All positions of authority should have the same mindset at their core: I have this position in order to better those under me, not to work my own desires and have my own fun. Fatherhood is authority. Rather than playing games with our "rights" to do something our way, we have to consider what will do good for those that we have a responsibility toward.

Yes; fatherhood should be honored. It is a powerful and special thing.
But much more so than just being one who was capable of and did bring a life into this world; we should honor those who have been GOOD fathers toward us (some not even physically but through marriage or other relationship).

For those of us who hold the office of father today or look forward to having that office in the future; consider your ways. Which kind of father will you be?

When Tradition Doesn't Add Up (Easter)

I don't celebrate Easter. I never have.

That might come as a shock to a few people (though I'm not sure how). I actually don't celebrate any religious holidays.
I start out with that information because I want to make my position clear from the start. I come into this discussion as a person with no personal attachment to holidays. This does change my perspective, and I felt the need of providing that disclosure immediately.
Now, I certainly don't expect my action or inaction to mean much to anyone. Anything that a Christian does in relation to God should be understood clearly in the light of scripture and considered carefully based on scripture.

There are numerous reasons for why I don't celebrate Easter. Most of those reasons I will not go into in this particular post, because that would open up so many other points that it would become difficult to address them all.

I will, in brief, state that I oppose religious holidays because they all stem from Roman Catholic roots (if you want a short listing of quotes as to why that is a problem see this article), and are filled with "sanctified" Pagan practices that Rome adopted for the sake of attracting Pagan converts (for a further reasoning into this matter and a collection of quotes from various Christians from the past and the history of the rejection of religious holidays this post).

However, when dealing with Easter, the argumentation regarding why those things should be ignored and the holiday continued in practice frequently is that Easter is essential to focusing on the death and resurrection of Christ. So, in order to point out the flaw in that argument, this post will focus on one very significant aspect: the "traditional" timeline for the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus.

This article has been updated since the original posting on 3/30/2018 due to several questions that were raised after the original posting and due to additional information being provided.

Most Christians view "Good Friday" as the day of the Crucifixion, based on centuries of tradition. The problem is that this tradition does not match up with what the Bible says.
You might say; but why does that really matter? It matters on several levels. It matters because it is part of a collection of elements built into Easter from its Catholic foundation that are counter-biblical. It also matters because it denies the truth of the Resurrection of Christ and destroys a very significant message of Jesus. That is not a small thing.

How long was Jesus supposed to be in the tomb after His death? Most Christians would be able to tell you that He stated he would be in the tomb for three days. This does matter.

Jesus stated repeatedly exactly how long he would be in the tomb: three days and three nights.
The Jews saw Him do many mighty miracles throughout His ministry, but they continuously demanded a sign from Him to prove He was sent by God. Here is one of those exchanges.

Matthew 12:38-40
38 Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee.
39 But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:
40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

This is not the only place that speaks of the sign of Jonas the prophet. Mt 16:4 and Lk 11:29 refer to the term as well, referencing the fact of Jonah's (transliterated from Hebrew to Greek to English as Jonas) time within the whale was three days and three nights (Jonah 1:17). This would be a well known fact to Jews.
Further, Jesus was recorded in Matthew 26:61, Mark 14:58, and John 2:19 telling the Jews that if they were to destroy the temple of His body, He would restore it in three days.
Finally, those Jews seeking to kill Him recalled these statements and threw them back at Him during his crucifixion (Mt 27:40 and Mk 15:29-30). They also specifically referenced His statement when asking for Roman protection at the tomb of Jesus and the sealing of it. They pointed out to Pilate that Jesus said it would be three days and He would rise (Mt 27:62-66).

We have Jesus making significant promises to His enemies that He would arise in three days and three nights. This is very precise and demands precise fulfillment, since it is drawing a parallel with another event from the Jewish scriptures. Jesus stated that this was the only sign that He would give to them. Such a singular sign would hold very high significance and would need to be fulfilled precisely as well to verify Jesus as a prophet.
According to Jewish law, in Deuteronomy 18:20-22, if a prophet spoke something that did not come to pass in the way spoken, then that prophet was not from God, should not be listened to, and would even be worthy of death. So, the idea that Jesus could give a specific timed prophesy and that the prophesy did not conform to that timing would make Jesus a false prophet.
As an interesting side note; those commands follow a prophesy (verses 18 and 19) of the coming of a Prophet like Moses that would give the commands of God and that to disobey would bring judgment. This prophesy was of Jesus and was one that the Jews were looking for, hence they asked John the Baptist if he was that man (John 1:19-27).
Viewing the issue practically, Jesus gave these specific statements to the Pharisees. This is meaningful because the Pharisees were the "literalists" of their day. They upheld a strict view of scriptural prophesy and statements, so that they went so far as to tithe from their herb gardens (Mt. 23:23). Do you you really believe that such men would take any statements of prophesy made to them as anything other than literal in how they would be fulfilled? They were already looking for reasons to deny and fight against Jesus, so they would have grasped any difference between events and His statements as a tool to deny His works.

With all of those things established, we have shown the scriptural and practical reasons why Jesus' statements regarding the timing of His burial and Resurrection would need to be precise: based on what He specifically said.
This is, by His own words, the singular great sign for the Jews of His identity as Messiah. If it doesn't comply with the description He provided, His ministry is moot.

So, explain to me how Jesus could be crucified on Friday, be put in the grave on Friday (around sunset), and rise again on Sunday at sunrise and make this prophesy true.

Let's go back to the chart from before and look at how it works out in time:

I've never been terribly good at math, but this one seems pretty easy to me.
To be honest, following the generally accepted time-line for the events leaves you with a LOT of holes.
This is nowhere close to three days and three nights. We're not even half way there!
How could the women buy spices to anoint His body, as described in Mark 16:1, when the only opportunity to do so was on the Sabbath? How could they get to the tomb at sunrise (Mark 16:2) and find Him already gone, if He rose with the sunrise as the common story is portrayed?

I've had this conversation before and immediately the response involves people trying to change terminology in order to make the story fit. The first argument is that if you're using the Jewish method of reckoning days as starting with the evening, this works. Secondly, they will start using fractional times like an hour or less to count as a "day." Let me point out that the above graphic actually uses the Jewish methodology; so this is not based on ignorance of that.
There are several issues with these kinds of counting methods.
First, the Gospel accounts mention that Jesus was taken down from the cross when "the even[ing] was come" (Mt 27:57 and Mk 15:42). It was already evening, just when His body was taken down. Both Matthew and Mark state that Joseph of Arimathaea didn't even approach Pilate to get the body until this point (Mt 27:58 and Mk 15:43-45), that doesn't even count Pilate calling a centurion to verify that Jesus was dead (Mk 15:44-45), the preparation of Jesus' body for the tomb by Joseph (Mt 27:59), the transportation of the body to the tomb and the placement of the stone on the entry. Now I'll give the mainstream the benefit of the doubt here and say that maybe all of that could happen in the short period between evening and night, though that seems highly unlikely.
Returning to the issue of practical concerns with the audience; how could any Pharisee be persuaded that Jesus had fulfilled His prophesy when the time frame just doesn't match? How does an hour or two (if even possible as seen above) make a "day?" Jesus Himself argued that there are twelve hours in a day (Jn 11:9), why would His enemies accept a fraction of that as reasonable? To any disinterested person that you are discussing something with, saying that two hours equals a day looks like you're bending the rules. Why would it be otherwise for those looking to criticize? Again, these men were the nit-pickers of the Law of God, they liked to examine and attack the smallest of things, let alone something obvious.
The third and issue is there is no way at all to get a third night into this. You can bend the meaning of "day" into anything you want, but you're stuck with a maximum of two nights. The nights are just as important as the days in this because of the critical nature of the precise prophecy. If nights were mentioned and numbered alongside the days, why would they be any smaller portion than the days themselves? The nights are so easily overlooked, but they are no less part of this.

Finally, there is evidence, from after the fact that verifies the importance of the stated time frame.
When Jesus spoke to his Disciples after His resurrection (Luke 24:45-47), He told them again of the importance of three days in the tomb.
The Apostle Paul (after the events in question), wrote affirming that Jesus did in fact rise on the third day (I Cor 15:3-4). So, this is not merely a matter of Jesus making a promise and it being fulfilled in a hazy manner, but something that is demonstrably correct by the testimony of His followers. Also, Paul twice uses the phrase "according to the scriptures" in these verses, showing a heavy connection between scriptural prophesy and precision with the events. If they were not precise, they would not meet that scriptural standard.
From both before and after the event, the same standard is shown. Three days and three nights. It very much matters.

So, what really does fit the Biblical account?
That is a very valid question to ask. If a person wants to prove something wrong, they should be able to prove what is right as well. In this case, it actually is very easy and aligns with other aspects of scripture as well.

Jesus was crucified on Wednesday during the day and placed in the tomb that evening. The Sabbath day that followed after His death was the special "High Sabbath" associated with the Passover (Exo 12:16) and not the weekly Sabbath. This leaves a whole day (Friday) between the special Sabbath and the weekly Sabbath for the purchase and preparation of spices by the women (Mk 16:1) and before Jesus rose. This is further proven by the women going to see the tomb in which He was buried and then going to buy the spices before resting on the Sabbath in Lk 23:55-56, which would not otherwise be possible. Jesus rose from the dead during the night and before the dawn in order for Him to be gone before the women arrived (See here for another outline that goes through the scriptures proving that).
These facts, as illustrated above, both perfectly conform to Jesus' statements about how long he would be in the tomb and also resolve other issues caused by the incorrect tradition.


What about objections?
I've discussed this for a number of years with people and their responses has boiled down to two objections. The most frequent is the response of: "Who cares, this doesn't change anything." The less frequent, but sometimes more painful, is the idea that denying the traditional format of Easter somehow is attacking the Bible or the Resurrection of Christ. I'll deal with both in reverse order.

1. Pointing out the errors in tradition doesn't attack the truth. Nowhere in scripture does it say that Jesus was crucified on the sixth day. Pointing out that the common tradition is wrong and that the holiday associated with it is flawed based on that doesn't deny any of the truth of Jesus dying, being buried, and being resurrected. In fact, being willing to look into scripture to see where we might be doing something that doesn't match affirms our commitment to the truth instead. Every time we make changes to get closer to God's word, we are telling ourselves and those who see those changes that we were wrong and that God and the Bible are right. Like in any area of life; correcting our mistakes in an area doesn't undermine the value of the thing but help it grow.
   I fully affirm in every point that Jesus died on the cross, was buried, and rose again from the dead bodily and was seen as such. The fact that I deny Easter tradition and Easter itself changes nothing about that in the least.
2. Why does this matter? Jesus' identity as the Son of God and perfect Prophet is put into question and armament for those who would question the account of His death and resurrection are created by the false traditions that are commonly believed. If we value the words and character of Jesus, then we should want to make sure that we conform to what they are and not just what everyone else thinks they are. God values how we worship Him in the New Testament, not only in spirit, but also in truth (Jn 4:23-24). Worshiping "in truth," or in accordance with what is true, means that we need to be willing to change to match what the truth is rather than just sticking with a convenient or popular error.

Additional Objections (added 2019)

1. Couldn't Jesus just have risen faster, in order to show His power was greater? First, that doesn't work with the statements from after His resurrection. If that were the case, these would not have been stated, but would have been changed to talk about how He accomplished it faster. Secondly, that's not how a timed prophesy works. Part of the fulfillment, and the way that it can be verified to be true, is the fact that it gives a specific time-frame for fulfillment. Prophesy is not for the purpose of speculation and mystery, but for evidence of God's power when it comes to pass and for the confirming of the faith and direction for the faithful when they see the events predicted take place. Raising someone from the dead, though a rare miracle, had been done by others. Jesus Himself had done so publicly, and His enemies had tried to hide the events. However, raising one's self and doing so on an appointed day was something that could not be argued against.
2. What about Luke 24:21? Some have argued, that since the verse states that it was the third day on that day that Jesus was risen and appeared, that Jesus must have been crucified on Thursday and rose on Sunday. First, this is attempting to make a scriptural point based on one verse alone, which is an uncertain practice at best (Deut 19:15, II Cor 13:1, etc). Secondly, it ignores all of the other verses (especially those from after the resurrection) that state three days. If this is reliant upon Jewish calendars, we've already addressed that. The answer to this is that the disciples in question are counting "exclusively" and not counting the current day. This is a common way of counting (though we don't consider it much), and the differences between inclusive (counting the present thing) and exclusive (not counting the present thing) can be seen throughout scripture. This argument largely stems from missing the common use of phrase and making it into a point by itself with no other support.

As always; I invite anyone who would like to challenge me on any part of this to respond with their questions or disagreements.
This is only one of many issues that are brought to light by a study of Easter and the things associated with it. For the time being, based on trying to make this a coherent discussion, I'm not going into those things.
If you have scripture to justify tradition, I'd love to see it. Book, chapter, and verse will always prevail with me. As I stated before, willingness to change our stances based on scripture is what matters way more than thinking we are correct, and that applies to me first. If you could show me how I'm wrong, you would be doing me a service. It would be the same service that I am attempting to supply to everyone else by writing this.

Nothing New Under the Sun[rise Service]

Sunrise services are a common tradition among many.

Let's just take a quick moment to look at the only "Sunrise Service" recorded in scripture and why there is a tradition of something like this in Christianity today.

While there is practically no mention of any of the religious holidays or practices celebrated by Christians today in scripture, this one does actually appear. It's just not how you think.

The passage that we are going to examine is Ezekiel chapter 8. For those who haven't read it or who are not familiar with it: God gives Ezekiel a vision of what the hearts and actions of the people of Israel show about their worship of God. It is a condemnation of both what they do and what they are thinking, and lists a growing (both in number and severity) collection of sins. The entire passage is very interesting, but I'm just going to pull out the relevant statement to this time of year.

From verse 5 to verse 17 is a list of the sins taking place in Israel.
At each step along the way Ezekiel is told that what he would see next would be even more abominable than what came before. It starts with an "image of jealousy" within Jerusalem, moves onward to some of the leaders of the people secretly offering sacrifice to idols, and then it gets worse to have the women of the nation engaged in the ritual worship of the pagan deity Tammuz (Click here for a description of Tammuz and the noted worship).
So, we've gone through all of those obvious sins, and now we've come to the last in the list, the one God calls more hated in His sight than any before.

^{Eze 8:15-17a
15} Then said he unto me, Hast thou seen this, O son of man? turn thee yet again, and thou shalt see greater abominations than these.
¹⁶ And he brought me into the inner court of the Lord's house, and, behold, at the door of the temple of the Lord, between the porch and the altar, were about five and twenty men, with their backs toward the temple of the Lord, and their faces toward the east; and they worshipped the sun toward the east.
¹⁷ Then he said unto me, Hast thou seen this, O son of man? Is it a light thing to the house of Judah that they commit the abominations which they commit here?

Here we have the one description in scripture of a "Sunrise Service."
Now, of course someone is going to say to me, "how do you know it's sunrise?" That's easy. When is the sun positioned in the East? When it is rising. Additionally, the act of worshiping the sun as it is rising is a well-documented pagan practice.

And I also know that someone will say that these things are not the same and shouldn't be compared.
But let's ask ourselves why Christians even have something called a "Sunrise Service."
The tradition of doing this is derived from the Catholic and Orthodox "Easter Vigil," but was modified into something that didn't include the hours long liturgy. The point of doing it at sunrise is to commemorate Christ "rising with the sun" as many view the tale of Easter.

There's problems with that narrative though.
First, it is a slightly modified version of the Catholic practice. A simple look at the Catholic practices associated with Easter will show the multitude of Pagan elements appropriated for the Christian festival in order to help convert Pagans. Most of the emblems associated with Easter are derived from these sources. Bunnies and eggs are incredibly well-documented fertility symbols (and still accepted and used by Protestants and Baptists). The Catholic practice of "hot crossed buns" is further condemned in scripture (Jer 7:18) as being nothing more than the appropriation of the worship of the "Queen of Heaven" (a name they have stolen to give to Mary). The adoption of a practice that mirrors sun worship is very obvious here. So, why would anyone want to copy this?
The bigger problem for this is that the only reason someone might want to make such a service would be to fit the idea that Christ "rose with the sun," but that's just not scriptural (no matter how many people think it).

Jesus was risen before the sun ever came up. The Gospels are explicit on this. Some may be confused by the ordering of the verses in Mt 28, since it mentions the women coming to the tomb about the time of the dawn before it mentions the stone rolling away, but when looked at carefully, you can see that when they arrived the angel said He was already gone. Mark 16:2 states that they came at the time of the rising of the sun and He was already gone. Further, Jn 20:1 says that it was still dark as they got there (so, as the dawn was beginning) and He was gone.
So, scripture itself proves that Jesus did not "rise with the sun," and so the practice of claiming to emulate it by the timing of service has no biblical merit.

Most people ignore the blatant pagan roots of practices associated with Easter. They would say that "we mean something different by them" and that therefore their intention makes the act itself clean. This is little more than an argument that the ends justify the means. The exact same people who use this argument would be repulsed by it being used in other circumstances, and applying it consistently across areas other than this would lead to atrocity. Others like to take the argument from silence and say that since the things involved in these practices aren't condemned explicitly, they can be allowed. That argument also doesn't hold water scripturally, but we can deal with that another time.
The end result of this though is that many Christians, indeed; churches themselves, are planning for a religious service that is patterned after something explicitly condemned in scripture. Neither the argument of intention nor the argument from silence can whitewash something God has made clear is abominable in His sight.

This tradition, just like most traditions, is never questioned. No one examines the merits of it and sees if it fits with the word of God. Whether it be because it is something that is assumed to be "Christian" because so many do it, the happy memories associated with the great emotion of the event, the support of all the godly and wise people that also take part in it, or any other factor; all that matters is what God says about His worship.
No "tradition" should be held above approach. If it can't be proven from the word of God, then it is suspect at best.

If nothing else, it is my desire that Christians would look at the traditions that they hold to (or the new ones that so many are adopting as more and more are adding in additional Catholic days and rites - like Maundy Thursday, Palm Sunday, and the like) and look at the word of God. If you can verify something by the weight of the word of God, then it is good and proper, if not, it has no place in the worship of God.

For more points on the problems with the Easter narrative click here.

Truth in Music 3: "Show Pity Lord"

Yet again, I find myself drawn to write about the words of a hymn that has been on my long list of favorites for a very long time.

Further, I can't help but notice that the words for this one were also written by Issac Watts; hymn writer and logician extraordinaire.

The words of this hymn may not be familiar to many. Though this was written almost 300 years ago; some of the ideas expressed within them has fallen out of favor in recent generations because it expresses a sense of guilt and guiltiness that makes people uncomfortable. However, in order to really understand the mercy of God; we must first understand how much we need mercy.

The fact that you are a child of God does not erase your nature or prevent you from further issues.

Show Pity Lord

By Isaac Watts

Show pity, Lord, O Lord, forgive,
Let a repenting rebel live:
Are not Thy mercies large and free?
May not a sinner trust in Thee?

• This song is a heartfelt request for mercy. There is a weight of rebellion and sin that weighs upon the author and upon us all.
• Immediately the status of Lord and King is recognized. Rebels from real kings fear just punishment and the plea for mercy is one for life itself, because of that rebellion.
• There is no reliance or trust in anything that the sinner himself as done. All of the hope for the request is found in the character of that Lord. He has mercies, and they are incredible. He is worthy of trust. Those things alone support the cry.

My crimes are great, but don't surpass
The power and glory of Thy grace:
Great God, Thy nature hath no bound,
So let Thy pardoning love be found.

•  For someone really seeking mercy from God, we see part of their heart expressed. There is no excusing their sins. They acknowledge that they have great crimes against Him.
• Again, reliance on God's nature and His goodness is what is looked to and nothing else.
• God's grace is sufficient for the deepest of crimes, and His infinite being is capable of pardon beyond comprehension. All that limits His love is His choice to cleanse and give that love.

Should sudden vengeance seize my breath,
I must pronounce Thee just in death;
And if my soul were sent to hell,
Thy righteous law approves it well.

• True repentance and seeking God's forgiveness also comes with acceptance of what the penalty should be. The penalties for sin are both death and Hell; and those are the completely just consequences.
• These words are some terribly hard ones for many people. They don't like the idea of that kind of God or divine justice. Many reject the concept of Hell or a God that could send someone there. There are even many who cannot accept the justice of a God that is able to end life at the time that He appoints.
• Sin has consequence. Because we are sinners we deserve any penalty that He assesses. Denial of that truth denies the need for God to save. Why would he save someone who doesn't think the penalties for that sin is just?
• Some may ask; "What about my good deeds and life for Christ." Without Him and His choice for you, it means nothing. His righteous law condemns one and all without Him.

Yet save a trembling sinner, Lord,
Whose hope, still hovering round Thy Word,
Would light on some sweet promise there,
Some sure support against despair.

• You should expect nothing less from Watts, but we have the conclusion of an argument that has been building the whole song. Here he makes his final case for God's requested mercy.
•  Up to this point he has demonstrated his confession of guilt, his acceptance of the just penalty, and his sole hope for help being in God alone. Now he pulls all of that together with his desire for the future and where he draws his strength from.
• Note that he doesn't look for hope from anywhere but the word of God. In it alone is found the truth of all of the points made before.
• He makes clear his fear before God because of his state before God's justice. He is not content to just quake in fear though; he throws himself into scripture to look for a light of hope from God.
• He finishes by returning to the nature of his Lord and glorifying it while throwing himself upon that character. He knows and praises the certain and unmoving protection that God reveals in his word for His people and asks to be given that.

I share these works of other children of God and dissect their phrases because I want to bless the hearts of others with their messages in the same way that they have blessed me over the course of my life.
Perhaps these words are new to you. Perhaps some of the concepts are foreign. They are all biblical.
Can you humble yourself to the level described here and own your sins in the way that is described? Can you acknowledge the depth of penalty that is due to you (and all of us) for our sins? Do you think there is anything inherent or that you have done (whether in belief or action) that makes you somehow worthy of different treatment from anyone else?
Throw yourself on the mercy of God alone and live the way that he commands; and know the sure support he offers.

My Love

Nine years.
108 months.
3,285 days.
78,840 hours.
4,700,430 minutes.
As of this minute, that's how long you've been my wife.

In some ways it feels just like yesterday.

In other ways it seems like a lifetime; because it is hard to imagine life without you.

Almost a third of our lives has been spent together as man and wife.

I struggled to figure out how to even talk about what you mean to me. Some things just can't be expressed in words in a way that will ever satisfy.
The best idea I could come up with was a little story of us.
Sure, others can read this and enjoy the story, but this is for you.

We've known each other for more than 13 years.

I still remember our verbal jousting sessions in EN102 and how much fun it was to meet someone who could give a snappy comeback to my silly comments. Even then, while barely knowing you, I admired your mind and your ability to communicate. And to be honest, the fact that you could find a quirky person like me fun to be around was unexpected.
The fact that you continued to like me and that our relationship developed still surprises me at times. The collection of ways in which I managed to complicate things (like my inability to ask you out properly) makes me cringe to this day. Yet, you still were willing to be with me.

Then came Burger King.
One of the reasons that I think so fondly of that job was because of the time that I got to work with you while there. Sure, it wasn't easy having a friend as an employee, and I did give you some of the worst jobs to do in order to show that I wasn't playing favorites; but we also had time to talk like we hadn't before. Not only were we able to learn a whole lot more about each other, but also about our personal faiths.
I learned to admire you even more here, because I got to see the way your mind works and how seriously you take matters of faith. Where others don't care at all, or are more willing to "agree to disagree" on things that they consider difficult or uninteresting; you were willing to look and consider ideas that you'd never heard before from someone who was still learning how to convey those ideas coherently. I have no shame in saying that my knowledge of God and His word increased dramatically in that time because you forced me to defend my beliefs.
On the day we were married I said that you had gotten to see me at my worst while working there. I know a whole lot better now, but still am thankful for us having such a chance to see each other outside of the confines of dating and the way that people portray themselves better in that situation.

Somehow, in the midst of our discussions on religion, our busy class schedules, both of us working (separate jobs by that point), and just life in general; a romance formed.
I really don't understand what you saw in me then and even less what you see in me now, but it pretty soon became obvious to everyone that it was more than just friendship.

It still is the best birthday present of my life, having you accept my offer to spend our lives together, and I don't see any other present coming close any time soon.

While some people may consider the last year of college to be the hardest; I barely remember the last semester of it, since I was just waiting for the day that I could marry you.

And then the months after flew by as we approached the day where you would be my bride.

We took oaths together before God, family, and friends; oaths that bind us in this life.

But to be honest, it's not just about the oaths. I love you. I want to be with you. I want to be the one that you can't live without and want to spend your life with.

No, it hasn't been easy. We'll both admit to being sinners and having our issues.

If anything, you've probably found that I'm more quirky than you knew before you married me.

 The point is that we have worked through those issues and continued to love one another.

I have loved learning and growing together with you.

The man that I have become, and the man that I want to be, has been contributed to in so many ways because of things that you have helped me understand.

I have no doubt that I am a better man because of you.

It is my prayer that I've made you a better woman.

We've been through a lot together.

Nine years is enough time for various things to happen.

We've been through lost jobs, lost family, and lost friends; but you've been faithful both to God and me. You've been at my side and had my back.

And there are the adventures we've taken together. Whether it be climbing the face of Bald Rock shortly after marrying me to swimming with dolphins, I've loved sharing my life with you.

It has been fascinating to watch you grow into the role of a mother.

I know you didn't initially think that you'd really get it, or that you'd be good at it.

Perhaps that's why God let us wait so long before we were able to have Natalia.

But when His time was right, He made everything work out.

You may not realize it, but you're a great mom, and Natalia has always loved you.

Seeing the two of you and how you both are learning with each other is wonderful.

Sharing a happy family with you is incredible.

Last year was hard.

Our joy and our second pregnancy and then pain at the loss of it was difficult to process in such a short amount of time.

But that's when you really get to see the strength of someone. When we were faced with that loss, even the possibility of losing you, it wasn't something that you crumbled under. You grabbed hold of your faith and relied on the God that we both love for your strength.

And I meant what I said then. You are worth more to me than any number of children, and if we had never had another you would have been more than enough for me.

But God continued to be good.

Getting to have another child with you was an amazing gift.

Experiencing the joy of surprise and learning all over again and the way that it lit you up. Sharing with you the thanks to God for giving us an opportunity that we shouldn't have had.

Having another life entrusted by God to us, that we get to raise and mold together. The wonder of life from the beginning again. I am thankful to share such a time with you.

 Seeing you each day and the way that you take care of our girls is marvelous. I know it did scare you, and maybe does still sometimes, but you're a good mom. The way that you have continued to teach, help, and care for both of them encourages me.

My love.

You are the greatest natural gift I have ever been given.

God made you for me, and He did so very well.

Yes, it's been nine long years, but that's hardly enough.

I pray for many more years with you in my arms.

This feeble effort isn't enough to express what you mean to me, but that's what life is for.

You have been my beloved and my friend; and I want to spend my life with you.