R. Albert Mohler Jr.'s Blog, page 381

“Downton Abbey” and the Modern Age—What Are We Really Watching?

Americans by the millions tuned in to watch the premier of Downton Abbey’s fourth season, eager to enjoy the continuation of the saga of the Earl and Countess of Grantham and their household. According to press reports, 10.2 million Americans watched the first episode, catching up on developments since the end of the third season, which ended with yet another tragedy, this time the death of heir Matthew Crawley. But the heir did not leave without leaving an heir, and so the story continues.

But, do Americans have any idea what they are really watching?

The millions of Americans who are now devoted Downton fans are drawn, no doubt, to the story and all of its twists and turns. They are captivated by the historical drama and the grandeur of Highclere, the real-life estate of the Earl and Countess of Carnarvon and the setting for Downton Abbey. They are intrigued by the hierarchies of the noble house and its inhabitants, with the nobility upstairs and the servants downstairs. They are amazed by the lavishness of the estate, the period dress, and the class structure of the society. They enjoy the quality of the acting and the quaintness of the habits portrayed. They must appreciate the attention to historical detail, right down to the soaps used and the dishes served. Many are likely to be unrepentant Anglophiles ( I include myself amongst them) who enjoy the look into the history and drama of our English cousins.

The stories, captivatingly written by Julian Fellowes (also rightly known as Baron Fellowes of West Stafford), are quite enough to hold the attention of a vast American audience. Critics rightly suggest that some viewers watch for the storylines, and others, rather less interested in the soap opera character that also marks the series, watch for an escape into history. Whatever the reason, they keep watching.

And yet, most viewers are likely unaware of what they are actually seeing. They are not merely watching an historical drama, they are witnessing the passing of a world. And that larger story, inadequately portrayed within Downton Abbey, is a story that should not be missed. That story is part of our own story as well. It is the story of the modern age arriving with revolutionary force, and with effects that continue to shape our own world.

Downton Abbey is set in the early decades of the twentieth century. Though by season four King George V is on the throne, the era is still classically Edwardian. And the era associated with King Edward VII is the era of the great turn in British society. The early decades of the twentieth century witnessed a great transformation in England and within the British Empire. The stable hierarchies of Downton Abbey grew increasingly unstable. Britain, which had been overwhelmingly a rural nation until the last decade of the nineteenth century, became increasingly urban. A transformation in morals changed the very character of the nation, and underlying it all was a great surge of secularization that set the stage for the emergence of the radically secular nation that Britain has become.

Viewers should note the almost complete absence of Christianity from the storyline. The village vicar is an occasional presence, and church ceremonies have briefly been portrayed. But Christianity as a belief system and a living faith is absent—as is the institutional presence of the Church of England.

Political life is also virtually absent, which amounts to a second great omission. The epoch in which Downton Abbey is set was a time of tremendous political strife and upheaval in Britain. The Earl of Grantham would likely have been quite distressed by the rise of the Liberal Party’s David Lloyd George as Prime Minister. The right of women to vote was a recent development, and the political waters were roiled by high unemployment and a faltering British economy. The signs of the Empire’s disappearance were there for all to see, even if most among the elites did their best to deny the evidence. The great landed estates were draining their lordly title holders of precious capital, and the economic arrangements that allowed the nobility to live off of their estates would never return. That is why so many English lords looked for rich American women to marry.

A great moral revolution was also in full sway. Birth control was increasingly available and openly discussed. In 1930, the Church of England would become the first major Christian church to endorse the use of contraceptives. Sexual morality was changing with a lessening of sanctions on premarital sex and adultery. Calls for liberalized divorce laws became more frequent. Many argued that the working class should have the same access to sexual liberty that the nobility seemed to allow themselves.

And yet, the secularization of the society was underneath it all. Christie Davies, author of The Strange Death of Moral Britain, gets right to the point: “Behind the strange death of moral Britain lies the strange death of Christian Britain. Even in 1900 the leaders of Christian Britain feared that such a decline might take place.”

Historians and theologians debate just how Christian the Britain of Queen Victoria really was, but the fact is that within the Church of England liberal theology was very much in control, with the Broad Church party setting the course. The literature of the late Victorian age and the age of Edward reveals ample evidence of what the poet Matthew Arnold would express in “Dover Beach.” In Arnold’s memorable words:

The Sea of Faith

Was once, too, at the full, and round earth’s shore;

Lay like the folds of a bright girdle furled.

But now I only hear

Its melancholy, long, withdrawing roar,

Retreating, to the breath

Of the night-wind, down the vast edges drear

And naked shingles of the world.

As historian Jose Harris of the University of Oxford explains, “A more common response, however, was not outright loss of faith but dilution, adjustment, or diversification of religious belief into something that was often much more nuanced and nebulous than had been common in the early Victorian age.” He also described the age as one marked by “the increasing vagueness and indeterminacy of religious belief.”

Rates of churchgoing fell—and they would fall further in decades ahead. The unspeakable tragedy of World War I seemed to add impetus to the loss of faith and theological certainties. A great spiritual void appeared in Britain long before the signs of such secularization would appear on American shores. But we can now see that the early decades of the twentieth century, including the so-called “locust years” in Britain between the two world wars, were a crucial turning time within that society. Those years set the trajectory that produced the Britain of today.

There are countless lessons for American Christians to observe as we watch Downton Abbey. But we ought not to miss the larger story of which tales like Downton are only a part. The world that was passing away was not only a world of footmen, but also of faith. Britain would never be the same again, and that loss of faith and certitude would eventually become a tide that would sweep across every aspect of British culture.

Of course, Downton Abbey did not stay in Britain, and that is true of the larger story as well. That larger story records a great shift in worldview, not merely a social transformation. The consequences of that larger story far exceed the story of a great English house and its inhabitants. In that sense, Downton Abbey is a parable of sorts—a parable that can teach us a great deal.

I am always glad to hear from readers. Write me at mail@albertmohler.com. Follow regular updates on Twitter at www.twitter.com/albertmohler.

Christie Davies, The Strange Death of Moral Britain (London: Transaction Publishers, 2004), p. xxiii.

Jose Harris, Private Lives, Public Spirit: Britain 1870-1914, The Penguin Social History of Britain (London: Penguin Books, 1993), pp. 171, 175.

The Briefing 01-10-14

1. Israel adopts one of the most liberal abortion laws ever known to humanity

Israel’s abortion law now among world’s most liberal, Times of Israel (Deborah Kamin)

2. Federal courts making pivotal decisions on abortion

Access to Abortion Falling as States Pass Restrictions, New York Times (Eric Eckholm)

3. Euthanasia creates a double standard for those with disabilities

The Disability Double Standard, Wall Street Journal (Joni Eareckson Tada)

 

Evolution and the Secular Worldview—The Fury of the Elites on Display

The Pew Research Center’s Religion and Public Life Project recently released data indicating that the issue of evolution still divides Americans. According to the research, about 60 percent of Americans indicate a belief in evolution, while just over 30 percent reject evolution as an account of human origins. A closer look at the data reveals that almost half of those who say they believe in evolution also believe that a Supreme Being guided the process. In other words, far less than half of Americans believe in a purely naturalistic version of evolution, the mainstream theory as held by evolutionists.

As you might expect, religious beliefs play a huge role. The vast majority of those identified as evangelical Christians affirmed that “humans have existed in their present form since the beginning of time,” while only 15 percent of “white mainline Protestants” joined in that affirmation.

But the researchers also asked questions about political affiliation. It turns out that Democrats and Republicans are increasingly separated over the issue of evolution, with a far greater percentage of Democrats affirming evolution. In 2009, 54 percent of Republicans affirmed evolution and 64 precent of Democrats did the same. The new research indicates that Republicans are even less likely to affirm evolution now, with only 43 percent indicating agreement with evolution.

In response to this research, columnist Charles M. Blow of The New York Times could express only exasperation: “In fact, this isn’t only sad; it’s embarrassing.”

To whom?

Well, to the cognitive elites of the secular establishment. The fact that millions upon millions of Americans do not accept evolution embarrasses them.

Charles Blow pointed to evangelical Christianity as the culprit: “I don’t personally have a problem with religious faith, even in the extreme, as long as it doesn’t supersede science and it’s not used to impose outdated mores on others.”

That is a stunningly amazing statement. Mr. Blow doesn’t have a problem with religious faith, “even in the extreme.” As later sections of his column make clear, evangelical Christians are the religious extremists in his view. As he writes, “When you look at white evangelical Protestants, the evolution denialism gets even worse.”

But evangelicals and other “extreme” religious folk need not be a bother, Charles Blow promises, if they do not use their faith to “supersede science” or “impose outdated mores on others.”

His statement reveals the modern secular disbelief that anything can supersede science. Science is king, those who wear lab coats are the new priests, and all other gods must bow before science. Yet, the secular establishment of science doesn’t even correspond to science as it exists in the academy, where there is no fixed body of knowledge that is singular and unchanging. Science continually supersedes itself.

Charles Blow also warns that “extreme” religious folk had better not try to impose morality, even as he and his fellow opinion shapers at The New York Times work overtime to impose their own morality. The public square, in his stated view, must be free from any threatening religious moral influence.

Later in his article, Blow warns that Republican leaders are cynically using the issue of evolution to convince rank-and-file Republicans that they are “fighting a religious war for religious freedom.” In truth, every political party will try to co-opt religion and religious voters whenever it can. There is no surprise there, and the pattern holds for both major national parties. But anyone who thinks that people are rejecting evolution as part of a Republican strategy needs to come up out of the political waters and breathe some air. The motivating factor here is theology, not politics.

What is really on display in this column, and in so much of the mainstream media, is amazement and frustration in the face of the fact that so many Americans still reject evolution. Why is that such an issue? Because evolution is central to the secular project. The secular worldview requires evolution, and the “denialists” are a huge stumbling block toward secular progress.

The New York Times even headlined Blow’s column, “Indoctrinating Religious Warriors.”

So, who is the real extremist here?

I am always glad to hear from readers. Write me at mail@albertmohler.com. Follow regular updates on Twitter at www.twitter.com/albertmohler.

“Public’s View on Human Evolution,” Pew Research Center, Religion and Public Life Project, Monday, December 30, 2013. http://www.pewforum.org/2013/12/ 30/publics-views-on-human-evolution/

Charles M. Blow, “Indoctrinating Religious Warriors,” The New York Times, Saturday, January 4, 2014. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/04/opi...

The Briefing 01-09-14

1. Utah at the center of marriage battle as polygamy becomes “the next frontier”

, New York Times (John Schwartz)

Thanks to the ‘Sister Wives’ lawsuit and the end of morality laws, Washington Post (Jonathan Turley)

2. Major cultural shift from parents getting married to parents cohabitating

More couples who become parents are living together but not marrying, data shows, Washington Post (Hope Yen)

3. Teenagers distort research on gay youth

Do ‘jokesters’ distort research on gay youth?, Los Angeles Times (Emily Alpert Reyes)

The Briefing 01-06-14

1. Extreme cold moves across the Midwest

Deep South braces for deep freeze as brutal cold grips the Midwest, CNN (Holly Yan and Joe Sutton)

2. Boy Scouts started allowing gay members first of the year

Scouting’s incomplete Evolution, New York Times (Editorial Board)

3. Bill de Blasio gets sworn in on the 1st

Taking Office, de Blasio Vows to Fix Inequity, New York Times (Michael Grynbaum)

4. Legal recreational marijuana goes on sale in Colorado

Up Early and in Line for a Marijuana Milestone in Colorado, New York Times (Jack Healy)

New York State Is Set to Loosen Marijuana Laws, New York Times (Susanne Craig and Jesse McKinley)

5. Marine Corps changing policy for women in combat

Marines back off pull-up requirement for women after many fail, Reuters (Elizabeth Dilts)

Some Thoughts on the Reading of Books

I cannot really remember when I did not love to read books. I do know that I was very eager to learn to read, and that I quickly found myself immersed in the world of books and literature. It may have been a seduction of sorts, and the Christian disciple must always be on guard to guide the eyes to books worthy of a disciple’s attention—and there are so many.

As Solomon warned, “Of making many books there is no end” (Ecc 12:12). There is no way to read everything, and not everything deserves to be read. I say that in order to confront the notion that anyone, anywhere, can master all that could be read with profit. I read a great deal, and a large portion of my waking hours are devoted to reading. Devotional reading for spiritual profit is an important part of the day, and that begins with the reading of Scripture. In terms of timing, I am somewhat unorthodox. My best time for spending time in the Word is late at night, when all is calm and quiet and I am mentally alert and awake. That is not the case when I first get up in the mornings, when I struggle to find each word on the page (or anything else, for that matter).

In the course of any given week, I will read several books. I know how much I thrive on this learning and the intellectual stimulation I get from reading. As my wife and family would be first to tell you, I can read almost anytime, anywhere, under almost any kind of conditions. I have a book with me virtually all the time, and have been known to snatch a few moments for reading at stop lights. No, I do not read while driving (though I must admit that it has been a temptation at times). I took books to high school athletic events when I played in the band. (Heap coals of scorn and nerdliness here). I remember the books; do you remember the games?

A few initial suggestions:

1. Maintain regular reading projects. I strategize my reading in six main categories: Theology, Biblical Studies, Church Life, History, Cultural Studies, and Literature. I have some project from each of these categories going at all times. I collect and gather books for each project and read them over a determined period of time. This helps to discipline my reading, and it also keeps me working across several disciplines.

2. Work through major sections of Scripture. I am just completing an expository series, preaching verse by verse through the book of Romans. I have preached and taught several books of the Bible in recent years, and I plan my reading to stay ahead. I am turning next to Matthew, so I am gathering and reading ahead—not yet planning specific messages, but reading to gain as much as possible from worthy works on the first gospel. I am constantly reading works in biblical theology as well as exegetical studies.

3. Read all the titles written by some authors. Choose carefully here, but identify some authors whose books demand your attention. Read all they have written and watch their minds at work and their thought in development. No author can complete his thoughts in one book, no matter how large.

4. Get some big sets and read them through. Yes, invest in the works of Martin Luther, Jonathan Edwards, and others. Set a project for yourself to read through the entire set and give yourself time. You will be surprised how far you will get in less time than you think.

5. Allow yourself some fun reading, and learn how to enjoy reading by reading enjoyable books. I like books across the fields of literature, but I really love to read historical biographies and historical works in general. In addition, I really enjoy quality fiction and worthy works of literature. As a boy, I probably discovered my love for reading in these categories of books. I allow some time each day, when possible, for such reading. It doesn’t have to be much. Stay in touch with the thrill.

6. Write in your books; mark them up and make them yours. Books are to be read and used, not collected and coddled. (Make an exception here for those rare antiquarian books that are treasured for their antiquity. Mark not thy pen on the ancient page, and highlight not upon the manuscript.) Invent your own system or borrow from another, but learn to have a conversation with the book, pen in hand.

I would write more for this post, but I must go read. More later. For now: Tolle lege!

I am always glad to hear from readers. Write me at mail@albertmohler.com. Follow regular updates on Twitter at www.twitter.com/albertmohler.

This article was originally published at Together for the Gospel on January 25, 2006.

“The Only Intelligible Explanation of the Incarnation”—A. T. Robertson on the Virgin Birth of Christ

The Christmas season comes each year with the expected flurry of media attention to the biblical accounts of Christ’s conception and birth. The general thrust of the secular media is often incredulity toward the fact that so many people still believe the Bible’s accounts to be true. This year, the Pew Research Center released a report on Christmas Day indicating that almost 75% of the American people affirm belief in the virgin birth of Christ. Meanwhile, the Public Religion Research Institute found markedly lower levels of belief, with just under half affirming the historical accuracy of the biblical accounts. The PRRI research indicated that four in ten Americans believe the virgin birth to be part of a “theological story to affirm faith in Christ.”

In truth, the virgin conception of Jesus, which most respondents know as the “virgin birth,” is no latecomer to controversy and rejection. On April 11, 1823, Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to John Adams in which he discussed his views concerning Jesus Christ. Jefferson was already known for his denial of miracles and other claims of supernatural intervention in history and nature. In this letter to John Adams, he predicts the collapse of all belief in the virgin birth of Christ:

And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with all this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this the most venerated reformer of human errors.

Theological liberals deny the virgin birth as revealed truth; Thomas Jefferson saw the gospel accounts as “artificial scaffolding”; and modern Americans increasingly see the virgin birth as part of a “theological story” about Jesus.

Back in the early decades of the twentieth century, when theological liberals such as Harry Emerson Fosdick were denying the virgin birth, Baptist New Testament scholar A. T. Robertson rose to its defense. In a little 1925 book, The Mother of Jesus, Robertson isolated the alternatives: affirm the truth of the virgin conception of Christ, or abandon any claim of incarnation.

Robertson, who was among the most famous scholars of his day, taught at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary from 1888 until 1934. He understood exactly what was at stake. The modernists, as theological liberals liked to be known, accepted a distinction between the “Jesus of history” and the “Christ of faith.” They wanted to present a Jesus worthy of moral emulation, but not a supernatural Christ who was God in human flesh. In between, theological “moderates” attempted a compromise between orthodoxy and heresy, offering a Jesus who was supernatural, but not too supernatural. They were eager to reject the virgin birth but tried to hold to other facts of the incarnation. Robertson saw through both the modernists and the moderates. Neither presented a Jesus who was truly God in human flesh.

As Robertson understood, the virgin conception of Christ is both fundamental and necessary to the New Testament’s presentation of Christ.

He also saw what others try not to admit: if Jesus was not conceived by the Holy Spirit, then he had a human father. Without the virgin birth, there is no explanation for the incarnation. If Jesus had a merely human father, there is no authentic connection to the incarnational theology of Paul and John in the New Testament. All that remains is some attempt to claim that Jesus was a mere human being who had a unique divine mission, or who was uniquely God conscious, or who was somehow adopted by the Father into a form of deity. All of these are heretical Christs, and none of these can save.

The incarnation is itself supernatural in every respect. “If we believe in a real incarnation of Christ, we cannot logically object to the virgin birth on the ground of the supernatural feature in it,” Robertson insisted. Here he was targeting the “moderates,” who wanted a supernatural Jesus, but not too supernatural. They wanted to maintain a claim to the incarnation and the resurrection, but not to miracles and the virgin birth. Robertson saw their problem clearly: they were undercutting the very truths they claimed to defend. If the virgin birth is out, so is any New Testament claim of authentic incarnation.

He referred to the “common Unitarian view” that Joseph was the biological father of Jesus and responded, “If we take Joseph to be the actual father of Jesus, we are compelled to be illogical if we hold to the deity of Jesus, or consider Jesus as merely a man.”

Robertson also defended the accounts found in the gospels of Matthew and Luke, and tied them to incarnational affirmations in the Gospel of John and the writings of Paul. As Robertson asserted, “the whole New Testament presents Jesus Christ as the Son of God, once Incarnate, and now Risen and on the Throne of Glory with the Father.”

If the virgin birth is just part of a “theological story,” then we are not saved, for only the Incarnate God-Man can save.  President Jefferson’s Jesus leaves a moral example, but cannot save us from our sins. The Jesus of the modernists was a mere man and the Jesus of the moderates possessed some kind of deity. The Jesus of the New Testament—all of the New Testament—saves to the uttermost.

And as for the virgin birth, A. T. Robertson said it best: “The virgin birth is the only intelligible explanation of the Incarnation ever offered.” And so it is, and ever was, and always will be.

A. T. Robertson, The Mother of Jesus: Her Problems and Her Glory (New York: George H. Doran, 1925).

Letter from Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, April 11, 1823. http://www.beliefnet.com/resourcelib/...

“December PRRI/RNS Religion News Survey,” Public Religion Research Institute, Tuesday, December 17, 2013. http://publicreligion.org/research/20...

“Most Americans Believe in Jesus’ Virgin Birth,” Pew Research Center, Wednesday, December 25, 2013. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/...

“And Them That Mourn”—Celebrating Christmas in the Face of Grief and Sorrow

NOTE: This essay was first published last year in light of the horrors of the shootings in Newtown, Connecticut. This year, in view of the one-year anniversary of that unspeakable tragedy, and in acknowledgement of the fact that so many others have suffered great loss in the past year, it is published again. In just recent days, the parents and loved ones of young Claire Davis, the 17-year-old girl who died days after being shot in the Arapahoe High School shooting in Colorado, are added to that number. Many reading this essay know that kind of loss all too well. The sudden death of my father, Richard Albert Mohler, Sr., earlier this year means that this Christmas is for me and my family different than any we have known before. May this essay minister to all who have suffered loss and grief.

Families across the Christian world are gathering for Christmas even now, with caravans of cars and planeloads of passengers headed to hearth and home. Christmas comes once again, filled with the joy, expectation, and sentiment of the season. It is a time for children, who fill homes with energy, excitement, and sheer joy. And it is a time for the aged, who cherish Christmas memories drawn from decades of Christmas celebrations. Even in an age of mobility, families do their best to gather as extended clans, drawn by the call of Christmas.

And yet, the sentiment and joy of the season is often accompanied by very different emotions and memories. At some point, every Christian home is invaded by the pressing memory of loved ones who can no longer gather—of empty chairs and empty arms, and aching hearts. For some, the grief is fresh, suffering the death of one who was so very present at the Christmas gathering last year, but who is now among the saints resting in Christ. For others, it is the grief of a loss suffered long ago. We grieve the absence of parents and grandparents and aunts and uncles and siblings. Some, with a grief almost too great to bear, suffer the heartbreak that comes with the death of a child.

For all of us, the knowledge of recent events of unspeakable horror and the murder of young children make us think of so many homes with such overwhelming grief.

Is Christmas also for those who grieve? Such a question would perplex those who experienced the events that night in humble Bethlehem and those who followed Christ throughout his earthly ministry. Christmas is especially for those who grieve.

The Apostle Paul, writing to the Galatians, reminds us of the fact that we are born as slaves to sin: “But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons” (Gal 4:4). Out of darkness, came light. As the prophet Isaiah foretold, “The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light; those who walk in a land of deep darkness, on them has light shined” (Isa 9:2).

This same Christ is the Messiah who, as Isaiah declared, “has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows” (Isa 53:4). He fully identifies with and shares all our afflictions, and he came that we might know the only rescue from death, sorrow, grief, and sin.

The baby Jesus was born into a world of grief, suffering, and loss. The meaning of his incarnation was recognized by the aged Zechariah, the father of John the Baptist, who prophesied that God had acted to save his people, “because of the tender mercy of our God, whereby the sunrise shall visit us from on high, to give light to those who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace” (Luke 1:78-79).

There are so many Christians who, even now, are suffering the grief that feels very much like the shadow of death. How can they celebrate Christmas, and how might we celebrate with them?

In 1918, a special service was written for the choir of King’s College at Britain’s Cambridge University. The “Service of Nine Lessons and Carols” was first read and sung in the magnificent chapel of King’s College in that same year, establishing what is now a venerable Christmas tradition. In the “Bidding Prayer” prepared to call the congregation together for that beautiful service, the great truths of Christmas are declared in unforgettable prose:

Beloved in Christ, be it this Christmastide our care and delight to hear again the message of the angels, and in heart and mind to go even unto Bethlehem and see this thing which is come to pass, and the Babe lying in a manger.

Therefore let us read and mark in Holy Scripture the tale of the loving purposes of God from the first days of our disobedience unto the glorious Redemption brought us by this Holy Child.

But first, let us pray for the needs of the whole world; for peace on earth and goodwill among all his people; for unity and brotherhood within the Church he came to build, and especially in this city.

And because this of all things would rejoice his heart, let us remember, in his name, the poor and helpless, the cold, the hungry, and the oppressed; the sick and them that mourn, the lonely and the unloved, the aged and the little children; all those who know not the Lord Jesus, or who love him not, or who by sin have grieved his heart of love.

On the very evening of the celebration of Christ’s birth, Christians are called to remember, in Christ’s name, the poor and the helpless, the cold and the hungry, the oppressed and the sick, the lonely and the unloved, the aged and the children, those who do not know Christ, “and them that mourn.”

The church is filled with those who, while not grieving as others grieve, bear grief as Christians who miss their loved ones, who cherish their memories, and who wonder at times how to think of such grief at Christmas. Far too many homes are filled with them that mourn.

And it will be so until Christ comes again. The great truth of Christmas is that the Father so loves the world that he sent his own Son to assume human flesh and to dwell among us, to die for our sins and to suffer for our iniquity, and to declare that the kingdom of God is at hand. This same Jesus was raised from the dead on the third day, conquering death and sin. There is salvation, full pardon from sin, and life everlasting to those who believe and trust in him.

Christmas is especially for those who mourn and suffer grief, for the message of Christmas is nothing less than the death of death in the death and resurrection of Christ.

And them that mourn. Christmas is especially for those bearing grief and sorrow. Our joy is hindered temporarily by the loss we have suffered, even as we know that those who are in Christ are promised everlasting life. We know that even now they are with Christ, for to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.

Christians bear a particular responsibility to surround fellow believers with this confidence, and to minister Christmas joy and love to those bearing griefs. We stand together in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, declaring with the Apostle Paul that nothing, not even death, can separate us from the love of God. We bind one another’s hearts, respect one another’s tears, and remind one another of the blessed hope. For, it was Christ himself who promised that our “sorrow will turn into joy” (John 16:20). When we sing Christmas carols and read the great Christmas texts of the Bible, we hurl the message of life over death against the evil one and death, who meet their ultimate defeat in Christ.

That Bidding Prayer written for King’s College, Cambridge in 1918 draws to a close with words that speak so powerfully to the church about these very truths:

Lastly, let us remember before God all those who rejoice with us, but upon another shore, and in a greater light, that multitude which no man can number, whose hope was in the Word made flesh, and with whom in the Lord Jesus we are forever one.

Those words are exactly right. Those who have gone before us to be with the Lord are with us in Christmas joy. They rejoice with us, “but upon another shore, and in a greater light.” Our loved ones in Christ are in that unnumbered multitude “whose hope was in the Word made flesh.” The great truth of Christmas is shouted in the face of death when we declare that, even now, “in the Lord Jesus we are forever one.”

Your loved one was not created and given the gift of life merely for that chair now empty. Those who are in Christ were created for eternal glory. We must train our sentiments to lean into truth, and we must know that Christmas is especially for those who grieve.

And them that mourn. The chair may be now empty, but heaven will be full. Remember, above all else, that those who are in Christ, though dead, celebrate Christmas with us, just upon another shore and in a greater light.

Merry Christmas.

I am always glad to hear from readers. Write me at mail@albertmohler.com. Follow regular updates on Twitter at www.twitter.com/albertmohler.

For Whom Was Christmas Bad News

The Briefing 12-20-13 – Final Briefing of the 2013 Season

This is the final Briefing of 2013. Dr. Mohler will be back January 6, 2014. We wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas. Thanks for listening!

1) Duck Dynasty controversy isn’t over style – it’s over substance

What the Duck?, GQ Magazine (Drew Magary)

You Have Been Warned–The “Duck Dynasty” Controversy, AlbertMohler.com (R. Albert Mohler, Jr.)

“Duck” Debate: Bigotry vs. Belief, CNN.com (Television Interview including Dr. Mohler)

2) New Mexico legalizes same-sex marriage using unrelated 1972 amendment

 New Mexico Supreme Court Legalizes Gay Marriage, The Washington Post (Aaron Blake)

New Mexico Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage, The Washington Post and State of New Mexico

3) Methodist Minister who performed same-sex wedding has credentials revoked

Methodist minister defrocked after officiating at son’s gay marriage, Los Angeles Times (Michael Muskal)

4) Gender neutral toys? Kids know the difference

How to fight sexism in the toy aisle, Salon.com (Mary Elizabeth Williams)

5) Amidst cultural confusion over Christmas, clarity better be ours

Celebrating Christmas and the Holidays, Then and Now, Pew Research

Who’s welcoming Santa? Christmas by the numbers, Los Angeles Times (Emily Alpert Reyes)