Below is a summary of an article that appeared in the Daily Nation in April, 2001 and which caused a big stir in the nation. As far as we know, several people responded to Mr Ochieng but he dismissed them and their arguments, declaring that they were simply "shouting" at him and not "arguing" reasonably. It is until he received Mr Kigame’s article below via email that he went quiet on this line of attack. We share this as a Ministry to encourage a commitment to the bold defense of our faith in public and to request you to stand with and support the activities of Word of Truth Ministries, an organization committed to the proclamation and defense of what we believe and why we believe it. We pray that the Lord will also use the discussion below to root you deeper in the Christian faith. If you have never made the commitment to follow Jesus, we hope, too, that you will consider His claims and put your faith in Him.

HOLY, THIS, BUT IRRELEVANT TO THE ARGUMENT

By Philip Ochieng, Sunday Nation, April 29, 2001

1. All the main church claims were not at all original. The virgin birth on December 25^th, the death on Easter Friday, the resurrection three days later, the ascension into heaven to judge mankind – all these were borrowed without bating an eyelid from Egyptian, Sumerian, Babylonian, Persian, Syrian, Indian, Phrygian, Greek and Roman paganism. Christianity triumphed over this paganism only by ingesting and inverting them.
2. Whenever Rome has been accused of plagiarism, its answer has been pure sophistry. It was the devil working backwards to cause these paganisms to imitate the Christ centuries and millenia before his birth!
3. There is no independent evidence of Jesus in Palestine 2000 years ago. There is only the evidence of the gospels. But they were not written by eyewitnesses. The author of the earliest Christian literature, Paul in his epistles, never met Jesus.
4. The gospels are insolubly self-contradictory. To serve one purpose, Matthew, for instance, tells us through a long genealogy that Jesus was a descendant of David through Joseph, and therefore, a human being. To serve quite a different purpose, he tells us that Jesus was God incarnate. The gospels also contradict one another. All high priests of the church know, though they are characterstically silent about it, that the first of these gospels, Mark, was totally silent on the virgin birth, the crucifixion, the resurrection and he ascension, and the last chapters of the modern version contain these dogmas only because they were added by Rome many centuries later.
5. The Vatican itself knows that, in similar vein, the gospels, Acts and the epistles contain numerous inventions, additions, excisions and other forms of editorial tampering to suit purely secular political interests as soon as Constantine decided to adopt Christianity as an instrument of rule. Many of the dogmas which have come down to us cannot even be found in the New Testament itself. The doctrines of papal infallibility and Mary’s immaculate conception, for instance, were introduced only the 19^th century.
6. Neither the Old nor the New Testament claims that these books were inspired by God, a claim which even libels God. For God, by definition, cannot possibly be responsible for such ludicrous decrees, contradictions and falsifications.
7. Everybody with any casual historical knowledge knows the origin of the statement, that every word in the Bible is God’s. It was introduced into the body of the dogmas only in 325 a.d. in the Council of Nicea in which Constantine bullied every participant to rubberstamp his new-fungled christology.

True,. For these twistings of the original essene doctrine are all attested in history books. They cannot be refuted by any juggled sacerdotal phrases.

“If anybody has evidence to the contrary, let them set it out. The Sunday Nation has room even for you … Heed Mwalimu Nyerere, “Argue, don’t shout!”

EMAIL:

CHRISTIANITY, A HARD LOOK AT THE FACTS

By Reuben Kigame, Word of Truth Ministries, Nairobi.

A friend of mine read to me your article titled “holy, this, but irrelevant to the argument” appearing in the Sunday Nation of April 29 for the reason that I am visually handicapped. I mention this because I have never had the privilege of having to read anything as soon as it breaks in the press. Therefore, although I almost feel like a late-comer in the discussion regarding your article, I felt the urge to respond to a number of issues you brought to the attention of the public. My underpinning assumption is that both you and I will, at least, for honesty’s sake, lay aside our religious prejudices regarding the issues you have raised and take a hard look at the facts. Although in the first part of your article you yourself succumbed to a great deal of “shouting” quite contrary to the appeal you raised in the last line attributed to Mr Nyerere, thereby clearly spelling out your religious inclination, we shall rest this for the sake of space and in order to concentrate on the task at hand, that is, providing a response to your arguments.

First, you argued that all the main claims of the church were not at all original but borrowings from pagan traditions. You added that Christianity triumphed over such traditions only by ingesting and inverting such paganism.

I wish to argue here that, if by originality you mean that which nobody else has come up with before, then I find it a slim point of reference in determining the truth value of any claim. Here, I mean that if something is true because Mr Ochieng came up with it before Mr Kigame did, we would have a very weak argument to deal with.

So, whether or not the Egyptians, Babylonians, Sumerians, Indians or Greeks had virgin births, resurrections, ascensions etc is, to me, not a point of contention – and neither am I saying that they did – the question is, do the claims of such societies and traditions fit the real facts of history? Your very reference to these traditions as pagan half decides the discussion, but we will not rest the case at that either.

That Christianity has no affinity or interest in the ingestion and custom-fitting of pagan doctrines is seen in its blatant condemnation of such paganism throughout the pages of its holy writ. Even attempts to de-Hellenise the biblical narratives as authors like Okot P’Bitek have tried, immediately become irrelevant in the face of a faith that pre-dates and dissociates itself from Hellenism. If the Pentateuch were, say, an ingestion of ancient Babylonian myths as certain schools of thought insist, one would need to justify why it stands in sharp contradiction with the polytheism of the Gilgamesh Epic.

If the dying and rising myths of the gods of Egypt are what you view as the predecessor of the crucifixion and resurrection accounts of the Gospels, then you would need to show their historicity and then justify your preference for myth in the face of New Testament events read in the context of living and documented history.

Here, I found your position a little reductionist, preferring chronological comparison to historical facts. For this reason, whether or not Christians decide to pause and celebrate the virgin birth in December or June is not the point. Let them do it whenever they will, but what we should debate is whether or not two descendants of David’s truly journeyed to an earthly city called Bethlehem at the time of the census during the reign of real Roman rulers over Palestine. Only a dishonest person would read the following passage in Luke 2:1-2 as non historical: “About this time Caesar Augustus, the Roman Emperor, decreed that a census should be taken throughout the nation. (This census was taken when Quirinius was governor of Syria.).”

Notice that the passage that follows indicates that everyone was required to return to his ancestral home for this registration.

This leads me to your claim that there is no independent evidence of Jesus in Palestine 2000 years ago except that of the Gospels. You dismiss the Gospel sources for the reason that they were not written by eyewitnesses of the events they record. For a moment I wondered if you raised the argument after investigating the historical accounts and found them devoid of independent information, or if you just did not like what you found among the Roman and Jewish historians. I wondered too if the confession of the eyewitnesses themselves mean anything to you. For instance, the apostle Peter writes: “We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty …We ourselves heard this (transfiguration) voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain.” (2 Peter 1:16-18).

And what about John the Disciple when he writes, “ That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched – this we proclaim concerning the Word (Logos) of life!” (1 John 1:1) Besides, how could one ignore the confession of a historian/medical doctor like St Luke, when he writes: “Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.” (Luke 1:1-4)

If the New Testament documents are unreliable for information about Jesus and the events of the time of Christ, then we have no hope for any reliable knowledge of any ancient documentation for the reason that the manuscripts of the New Testament alone outnumber those of any piece of ancient writing in circulation today.

Archaeology has given more proof of the New Testament events than of all the other works of antiquity put together. If there is cause to suppose that the writings of the Evangelists were partisan, this would involve a significant but false implication that witnesses cannot be relied upon if they are close to the events or the person about whom they give testimony. This is like saying that the survivors of the Jewish Holocaust are not reliable because they were close to the events they describe to the world. The fact that they were close to the event puts them in a better position of reliability than all the scholars of these facts trying to write about the event years later.

The matter is simple. The New Testament writers were eyewitnesses and they should not be disqualified for having been close to the events they relate. There is also a big problem in your attempt as a scholar to redirect attention on discussing Jesus to the secular sources in order to neglect the eyewitness accounts of the events. It is like saying in a court room case that evidence from those that were not eyewitnesses is preferable to that of actual eyewitnesses. I find this absurd.

Nevertheless, since the nature of your challenge was that facts be tabled, then I wish to share a few references about Jesus Christ from a selection of secular sources to prove that it was a little careless for you to suggest that there are only the Gospels to relay this information and that there are no independent sources which mention Jesus in Palestine about 2000 years ago.

The 1^st century Roman historian called Cornelius Tacitus is one of the most accurate and respected of the historians of the time. In Section 15.44 of his “Annals”, Cornelius writes the following about Christ and of Christians. Note the specific historical details he provides: “Consequently, to get rid of the report Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.”

Notice that Tacitus even makes reference to Pilate as one of their procurators, quite in line with the Gospel accounts. Tacitus was not a Christian. Similar citations may be found in Suetonias, Pliny the Younger, Lucian, and even Mara bar Serapion, who, for the sake of space, we will not quote.

It is not only the Roman historians and other general writers who provided independent witness to the historicity of Jesus, His followers and the events surrounding their lives. Even Jewish writings record these in detail, some favourably and others unfavourably. We will here cite Flavius Josephus, the great Jewish scholar and historian of the first rank on the affirmative and the Babylonian Talmud on the critical side. From the “Antiquities” in Section 18.3, Josephus writes: “Now there was about this time Jesus a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats…. He was the Christ… He appeared to them alive again the third day as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him.”

Note that, as a Jewish historian, Josephus would naturally be hostile to the person of Christ; but he stated the facts as plainly and objectively as a good historian would.

In the Talmud we read, “On the eve of Passover, Yeshu was hanged. For fourty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, ‘He was going forth to be stoned because He has practised sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Anyone who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plea on his behalf.’ But since nothing was brought forward in his favour, he was hanged on the eve of the Passover!”

You also argued that the Gospel accounts are contradictory, citing Matthew’s presentation of the humanity and deity of Jesus in the same Gospel. If I understand what a contradiction is, I believe it is the presentation of two opposite claims as mutual fact. I am not sure that the opposite of humanity is divinity. I think it is non-humanity, and not all non-human essences are divine. If it was, then what would be the opposite of bestiality?

For this reason I would argue that Matthew would be found to be contradictory in his presentation of the incarnate Christ if he were to say that Jesus was incarnate and not incarnate at the same time. In the same way, to argue that Mark’s exclusion of the account of the virgin birth is evidence that it is not fact is like saying that there are ghosts at Nation Centre because nobody has indicated that there are not.

I also think it is irresponsible journalism to indicate that Mark does not record the crucifixion, resurrection and ascension when he is one of the most detailed reporters of these events. The sections you deem to be in question, in fact, only affect the charge to the disciples and the ascension, and this too, is a strong ground for the Christian faith in indicating where the information is found, not a weakness. (Mark 16:9-20)

As for your statement that neither the Old nor the New Testament claims that the books are inspired, we will only cite the various passages that actually make either explicit or implicit contextual reference, once again, for lack of space: 2 Timonthy 3:16, Matthew 5:18, 2 Peter 1:20, Romans 9:6, Psalm 119, Amos 3:8, Deuteronomy 18:18, to cite but a few. Charging God or His prophets with libel for revelations He Himself has given here cannot even pass for fact let alone scribal piety. The truth of the matter is that the Bible is entirely trustworthy and is validated by a world of archaeological, historical and rational evidence. It cannot be equated with any work of antiquity. It does not even come near them.

A fair amount of detail on the supremacy of the New Testament documents on which the early Evangelists depended is given by several Christian authors and only a sketchy summary may be given here. Catalogued N.T. Greek texts include eighty-eight papyri manuscripts, 274 uncial manuscripts, and 245 uncial lectionaries. Those early uncial manuscript witnesses are extremely valuable in establishing the original text of the New Testament. The other 2795 manuscripts and 1964 lectionaries are minuscule.

This is an astounding number and variety. It is not uncommon for classics from antiquity to survive in only a handful of manuscript copies. According to F.F. Bruce, nine or ten good copies of Julius Caesar’s Gallic War survive, twenty copies of Livy’s Roman History, two copies of Tacitus’ Annals (cited earlier in this response), and eight manuscripts of Thucydides’ History (Bruce, 16). The most documented ancient secular work is Homer’s Iliad, which survives in 643 manuscript copies. Counting Greek copies alone, the New Testament text is preserved in some 5686 partial and complete manuscript portions that were copied by hand from the second (possibly even the first) through the fifteenth centuries (see Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, 2000).

As Dr Norman Geisler has aptly observed, “In addition to the Greek manuscripts there are numerous translations from the Greek, not to mention quotations of the New Testament. Counting major early translations in Syriac, Coptic, Arabic, Latin, and other languages, there are 9000 copies of the New Testament. This makes a total of over 14,000 copies of the New Testament. What is more, if we compile the 36,289 quotations by the early church Fathers of the Second to Fourth Centuries, we can reconstruct the entire New Testament minus 11 verses.” (Ibid.)

One mark of a good manuscript is its age. Generally, the older the copy the closer to the original composition and the fewer copyist errors. Most ancient books survive in manuscripts that were copied about 1000 years after they were composed. It is rare to have, as the Odyssey does, a copy made only 500 years after the original. Most of the New Testament is preserved in manuscripts less than two hundred years from the original (Geisler), some books of the New Testament dating from little over one hundred years after their composition, and one fragment comes within a generation of the first century. The New Testament, by contrast, survives in complete books from a little over 100 years after the New Testament was completed. Fragments are available from only decades later. One fragment, the John Ryland papyri, is dated 117-138.

Many critics reject the identifications arguing that they are too fragmentary for certain identification. O’Callahan, however, is a respected paleographer and he defends his work as consistent with that by which other ancient fragments are identified. Critics have not come up with viable alternate writings from which the fragments could have come without changing the usual procedures.

It is my hope that a fair look at the above facts will compel you, not just to abandon your previous position on the historicity of Christ and Christianity but pursuade you to examine the issues you have previously raised in this column on this subject. Yours faithfully, Reuben Kigame. (P.O. Box 76413, Nairobi)

MR. OCHIENG RESPONSE

—–Original Message—–

From: Philip Ochieng [SMTP:ochieng@nation.co.ke]

Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 7:34 PM

To: kigame@insightkenya.com

Subject: Re: WOULD YOU CARE TO PUBLISH THIS?

No, none of your arguments convinces me to the contrary. Why should anybody claim that Christ is the historical reality, whereas the "paganisms" were mere myths, when it is clear that it is the Christ myth that has borrowed parthenogenesis, the December 25 Nativity, the death on Easter Friday, the Resurrection and Ascention three days later? Why should these particular dates and events ‹ all associated with Osiris, Attis, Dionysus, Bacchus, Mithras, Indra, Adonis and Zarathustra ‹ be so compelling to the creators of the Christ story unless the creators were concerned simply to create another version of that paganism to achieve a particular momentary aim?

I must, nevetheless, thank you for the cool-headedness with which you have attempted to react to my articles. It is impossible to have any meaningful dialogue on this issue with dyed-in-the-wool Christians because they merely throw at you the very same dogmas you are trying to impugn, and this with extreme insolence and arrogance. I am a retired officer and no longer in charge of deciding what goes into the newspaper. If you want this published, please e-mail it to Bernard Nderitu, managing editor, Sunday Nation, at Bnderitu@Iconnect.co.ke. But I advise that he may not be able to use it in this form because it is far too long. It will stand a better chance of publication if you truncate it drastically to between 500 and 700 words at most. Thnaks and have a nice day

Ochieng

MR. KIGAME RESPONSE

From: Reuben Kigame [kigame@insightkenya.com]

Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 8:13 PM

To: ‘Philip Ochieng’

Subject: RE: WOULD YOU CARE TO PUBLISH THIS?

Dear Mr Ochieng,

Thank you for your prompt reply.

What you may not know is that I personally detest the same kind of "shouting" you mentioned in your column. I am a Christian myself and for the simple reason that the historicity of Christ compelled me to take His message seriously. After a bit of comparative religious study and a hard look at the claims of Christianity, I came to be convinced that it is the only logical expression of the much-needed answer to man’s fourfold quest: origin, condition, realignment and destiny.

I think that raising the initial question as to the historicity of Christ may be the place to start. I do not think it is right to pronounce Christianity a myth simply by escaping the real question: Was Christ a real historical figure who lived in a particular historical epoch during the reign of historical emperors/kings? I am persuaded that if Christ cannot qualify as a real historical personage with all the available data about him, then I would find it difficult to accept the historicity of any other figure of history before or after him. If, for instance, there are fewer manuscript copies of Tacitus’s Annals than there are for the N.T. and yet we rely heavily on them for information about the Roman era, then what are we really saying? That the Roman emperors are more historically acceptable with all their myths than the documented facts of the N.T. just because it points to religious content?

I wish to begin there before addressing the festivals you render as borrowings.

Thanks again for giving me an ear.

Kigame.

I mention all this to say two things: First, that I am deeply committed to Christ as the Lord of my life and hence consider myself a Christian. Second, I am greatly interested in media, especially insofar as it affects the faith and daily living of individuals in society. Right here, however, is my conflict. With a deep interest in both Christianity and the media, I am brought to wonder what the concept of “Christian media” entails, whether there is a biblical mandate for it, and, more seriously, whether what we see in Christian media today furthers or hinders the growth and publishing of our common faith.

There are two ways to understand the concept of “Christian media.” It could mean media as used by Christians, or media insofar as it carries Christian content. Here, we will employ the first usage, i.e. media as used by Christians. The reason for this preference is that Christians are to master creation rather than let creation master them. Besides, it is my understanding that media are simply channels of communication. For this reason the Christian should control them rather than the media control the Christian use of them. As a partial participant and great observer of what goes on in Christian media, I think this is where the crux of the matter is. I am drawn to believe that the modern Church has largely let the media control faith. By this I mean that the church has allowed herself to sink to the level of letting her members believe that if something with a Christian label is presented through the media, then it is authoritatively true and necessary for faith and practice. Some people wearing the Christian label, having realized this and knowing the power of media, have, I would say, come to blatantly abuse the practice of our common faith by exploiting innocent searchers of God’s truth for personal gain. But, what does Christian media really entail?

Just like the secular media, setting up Christian radio, television or magazine is an expensive venture. For this reason, there has to be a noble reason for spending large sums of money to set up any media, Christian or otherwise. How the initial capital or running costs for such media is harnessed, however, is a matter of serious moral consideration. While bank loans and other forms of capital investment can be harnessed for the establishment of media houses, the problem comes with the need to ensure sufficient provision for the day-to-day running of such houses. While the secular media can keep afloat by tapping into just about any form of advertising in keeping with secular freedom, the Church tends to be – and indeed ought to be – selective with such advertising, accepting (I would assume) only the kind of advertising that is in keeping with the Bible. But right here is one of my concerns.

If Christians use the media in accordance with the authority of the Bible, then how far should this go? Just as far as it is possible to refuse the advertisement of cigarettes, liquor, the use of condoms and misleading recreation places, or as far as examining advertisement that comes in the name of Christianity but which actually violates the teaching of the bible?

Around the Reformation time, one of the Pope’s representatives named John Tetzel went around selling Indulgences. Indulgences were some form of promise that if someone paid a particular sum of money, he/she could buy a dead relative or friend out of Purgatory. Many bought the Indulgences without question until men like Martin Luther spoke about this as being unbiblical and immoral. When Charles Russell, the founder of the Jehovah’s Witnesses sect began to advertise his “miracle wheat” in the 19^th century, many Christians bought the wheat believing that they would have better harvests than their secular counterparts. Yet, we must notice the subtle ingredient in the whole matter. Russell’s “miracle wheat” was bought, mainly because it was publicized by one who came in the name of the Lord. Perhaps this partly explains why in the recent past many Christians accepted without question or suspicion the claim by “Archbishop” Gilbert Deya of Kenya that, through the power of God, he was able to offer “miracle babies” to barren women.

The problem does not, however, stop here. While some Christians may, in fact, question the validity of getting many children in less than five years, many do not question the content of numerous ads that come in the name of the Lord. When a “Christian evangelist” or “man of God” advertises, “Join … this Saturday for a great miracle crusade …” and concludes the ad with, “all the sick will be healed,” and then all the sick who attend the crusade are not healed, what happens next? But do not miss my point here. What one is asking is not whether miracles still happen, for they do, but, how come, even though in all of these meetings thus advertised not every of the sick gets healed, why does the Christian media continue to earn revenue from these kind of ads?

This brings me to listener-supported programming. While it is healthy for listeners to give towards Christian broadcasting, must not the solicitation of such support be tested by biblical acceptability as well? Here, I am asking the biblical justification for such media events as “fund-raising weeks) where all sermons are geared compulsively towards the giving by listeners and viewers. Here, my problem is not that there are “fund-raising weeks”; rather the tailoring of Bible passages to say what they do not say so that stations can get support. Besides, how come that it is during such events that we hear the most prophecies, the most miracles and the most promises from such media houses? Does it not stumble Christians and non-Christians watching or listening to hear a preacher say that the Lord had told him/her that there was someone in the congregation that was going to give, say, one thousand dollars. When someone with that amount shows up, is it not often the case that either the figure will shoot up or another “revelation” follow that, now it is not just that one person with a thousand dollars, but another two, then five, then ten, etc? How about when someone stands up and announces, “Believe God with me for a car,” and then goes ahead to announce, “The Lord is telling me that there is someone here who is going to be blessed for giving up something precious …!”

All I am asking is this: Is it morally, let alone spiritually, acceptable, for Christian media owners to let this kind of usage of the media in the name of Christ go on? Besides, is it permissible to earn support through this manipulative means? Is it really right for us as Christians to condemn secular media for broadcasting or publishing immoral content and then broadcast the above kind of immoral behaviour, believing that, because it bears a Christian lable, then it is alright?

Assuming that Christian media should preach the Gospel of Christ, teach God’s truth as presented in the bible and minister to the needs of the audience, I would like to suggest that a few things be considered by those who set them up:

1. Consider the motive of setting a Christian medium up. If the aim is commercial or any other kind of personal gain, I propose establishing such a medium, but leave out the label “Christian.”
2. Consider the impact of such a medium on the society. If a media house is going to help the society grow then it should exist. If it breaks or destroys the society, then it should not exist.
3. Consider the spiritual consequences of existing as a media house. Any medium that promotes lies in the name of God is worse than one that lies without appealing to God. Besides, any media that takes advantage of people through manipulation or exploitation in the name of Christ should be closed down or changed to become secular because it embarrasses the Lord and His people and gives a false impression of Christianity. This applies to radio, television, magazines, websites, and any channel of communication that comes in the name of the Lord.

By Reuben Kigame

In the last Issue of “Reason”, we surveyed what Harry Potter is all about, showing the two sides of what has become a very controversial print series. In this second discussion, we will shine the biblical torch on Rowling’s books and test her writing using God’s ultimate standard for truth.

Let us begin by observing that there is no empty controversy, and that every contention is often about something specific. Therefore, instead of shining the biblical torch on all the themes in Rowling’s books, – something we cannot achieve in this limited space – we will narrow our focus on the main object of controversy in her books, that is, the use of magic as a platform for passing on the lessons she intends for her readers.

Many Christian ministers and apologists object to children reading the Potter series on the basis of their magical content. They argue that the books open the door for the readers’ involvement in the occult, something the Bible forbids. Both Rowling and readers of the series do not dispute that the books contain and depict their characters as using magic, ranging from the defeat of Harry’s chief enemy, Lord Voldemort to such acts as the drinking of unicorn blood to gain supernatural powers. While many Christians outrightly challenge Rowling’s decision to employ magic in her books, arguing that the Bible condemns it, she and some of her admirers argue that not all magic is evil and hence not all of it is ungodly. They observe that this harmless kind of magic, variously known as “white magic” is what is employed throughout the series. In “Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets”, Rowling actually goes to great lengths to discuss the quality, value and dangers of books, perhaps as a means of responding to her critics who say her books are dangerous. John Granger in “Looking for God in Harry Potter” defends the position that the series is entirely Christian in its message and symbolism and that Harry Potter is really a type of Christ especially in his overcoming of death with life and hate with love.

Chapter one of Granger’s book opens with the words, “The sorcery in Harry Potter supports biblical teaching, not practice of the occult.” He, as well as some people I have talked to on this question, say that Harry Potter is merely a story like the Narnia series or the Lord of the Rings, which portray wizards and witches in a positive light.

Granger argues that Scripture contains material about occult practices and nowhere on its pages does it condemn reading material with occult elements in it. He concludes that the magic in Harry Potter is no more likely to encourage real life witchcraft than time-traveling science fiction novels encourages readers to seek passage to previous centuries.

Christian proponents of the Potter series distinguish between bad and good magic. They say that sorcery is bad magic because it is invocational, i.e. uses magic to call in evil supernatural powers to accomplish evil ends. Good magic, they say, is incantational in that it is beneficent and uses spells to bring in the good and ward off destructive agents for the good of the individual. This, they argue, is in keeping with the English fantasy tradition going as far back as Shakespeare’s play, “The Tempest”, to the Narnia Series by C.S. Lewis. In short, it is believed that there is a difference between demonic (invocational) and godly (incantational) magic, and that the magic practiced in Harry Potter is godly.

Since the Bible is our ultimate standard in judging what is acceptable and what is not, we raise three questions here:

1. Does the Bible support this distinction between invocational and incantational magic?
2. Is the use of and fascination with “white magic” ungodly? And
3. For the Christian, is there anything wrong with reading or telling stories with witches and wizards in them?

First, does the Bible acknowledge this distinction? At least not in those terms. Perhaps the closest mirror to such a distinction is the story of the Israelites’ encounter of Balaam and Balak. A reading of Numbers will show that the use of spells is not uncommon in the Bible. A good example is the attempted spell on Israel by the Amorite king, Balak. This incident is set within the context of cursing and blessing. Balak hires Balaam to curse the Israelites through sorcery, but the Lord reverses the sorcerous spell. We read in Numbers 24:1-10: “Now when Balaam saw that it pleased the Lord to bless Israel, he did not go as at other times, to seek to use sorcery, but he set his face towards the wilderness. … Then Balak’s anger was aroused against Balaam, and he struck his hands together: And Balak said to Balaam, ‘I called you to curse my enemies, and look, you have bountifully blessed them these three times!’”

We must note here that this distinction, however, does not imply God’s approval of occultic involvement, even when it brings profits to many. Occultic involvement is forbidden even when it purports to defend God’s course. This is the reason why Christ and the apostles still cast out demons even when the demons acknowledged God’s power or His work. We read of this disapproval in Acts 16:16-18: “Now it happened as we went to prayer, that a certain slave girl possessed with a spirit of divination met us, who brought her masters much profit by fortune-telling. This girl followed Paul and us, and cried out, saying, ‘These men are the servants of the Most High God, who proclaim to us the way of salvation’. And this she did for many days. But Paul, greatly annoyed, turned and said to the spirit, ‘I command you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her.’ And he came out that very hour.”

The Harry Potter series, certainly, is extremely profitable to Rowling and those who have followed her books with movie series. Yet, it is clear that God could reject even what is economically profitable to humans as seen in the above passage.

Now we need to answer the second question. Is the use of magic ungodly? Here, we need to agree that the Bible is the Word of God. Logically, if the Word of God condemns something, it should not be done. It is plain through a reading of both the Old and New Testaments that God condemns occultic practices of every kind, whether they look harmful or harmless. What would be so harmful, say, about using charms such as amulets, throwing arrows into the air and observing the pattern formed when they fall, or gazing intently at the liver? Why would anyone feel uncomfortable with the practice of studying the movements of the stars or gazing into a bowl or large cup of water? As long as they are occultic, God does not want them as the Scriptures tell us in Ezekiel 13:13-19, 21:21, Isaiah 47:13, Genesis 44:5, 15, Galatians 5:19-21 and Revelation 21:8 among other passages. We might say it is fun or sport, good reading or something entertaining; but if God rejects it, it is not to be done.

As observed earlier, many of Rowling’s admirers argue that if magic is used positively then it is acceptable. They say that if a spell is cast for good ends it is of God. A reading of Ezekiel 13:17-19 leaves us in doubt that this is true. Here, God tells Ezekiel to set his face against those who prophesy out of their own heart. Verse 18 records God’s words: “Woe to the women who sew magic charms on their sleeves and make veils for the heads of people of every height to hunt souls! Will you hunt the souls of my people, and keep yourselves alive?” Note that even though magicians were among the chief advisers to kings in many countries recorded in the Bible, their power has been presented as inferior to God’s and their work often pitted against God’s will. (See Exodus 7 and Daniel 2). Those who practice magic are often presented as being against faith and in several Bible passages as being anti-God. (see Acts 13).

The Bible is outrightly opposed to involvement in or with sorcery primarily because sorcerers derive their power from demonic forces. Deuteronomy 18:10-11 categorically states: “There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, or one who practices witchcraft, or a soothsayer, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, or one who conjures spells, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead.” Occult practices in Israel were associated with pagan idolatry, and God condemned those who practiced them. Manasseh was condemned for rebuilding the high places Hezekiah, his father, had destroyed, raising up altars for Baal and making a wooden image as Ahab had done. 2 Kings 21:6 says that Manasseh also made his son “pass through the fire”, practiced soothsaying, used witchcraft, and consulted spiritists and mediums. The Bible says in this way he did much evil in the sight of the Lord “to provoke Him to anger.”

Note that witchcraft here is grouped alongside the other occultic practices Harry Potter proponents admit to be harmful.

Galatians 5:19-21 does not distinguish between good and bad occultic practices. Sorcery is listed here as a “work of the flesh”. In many contexts, witchcraft, the preoccupation of Hogwarts and the Potter world is understood as being synonymous with sorcery. The Bible puts it clearly in verse 21 that “those who practice such things will not inherit the Kingdom of God.” To say that one practices the good kind of something for which there is the consequence of banishment from the Kingdom of God is absurd. Not only is sorcery condemned in Revelation 9:21 as something that should be repented of, but is listed as a sin that will lead to the “lake which burns with fire and brimstone.” Sorcerers are listed alongside the sexually immoral, murderers and liars of those who will be outside the Holy City of God in Revelation 22:15.

Now we can answer the last question raised above. Is there anything wrong with reading books or listening to stories with occult content in them? I guess the only way to know that such media have occult content is by reading them or engaging with them. This is what all adult Christians should do, i.e. engage the world on behalf of posterity. Nevertheless, to recommend occult material for our children, even for the purpose of supposedly passing on Christian values and virtues is, in my estimation, a little irresponsible. We are to train children in the way they should go. (Proverbs 22:6). We are to introduce them to the Law of the Lord rather than books written with explicit occult content. (Deuteronomy 6:1ff). If there is anything valuable in books such as Rowling’s that ought to be passed to the young, then the adults should digest such and pass it on by way of illustration. The point here is not that we cannot employ non-biblical myths and narratives to teach the young, but that we must not surrender our children to content the Lord says we should avoid. We have raised healthy and successful children before 1997 when Rowling’s books first appeared. Our children will not understand Christianity any better through the eyes of Rowling or Lewis than in reading explicit accounts of Christ and His followers.

In conclusion, Christians believe in the power of the living Christ, but they do not view that power as if it is magical. It would seem to me that insinuating that ordinary magic can symbolize the risen Christ and lead people to faith in Him is in fact somewhat blasphemous. A reading of Acts 19:13-16 will prove this point. The Jewish exorcists as well as the sons of Sceva come to realize that a mere use of the name of Christ without faith in Him can be disastrous. If the world will not admire Christ if presented as clearly as He is in the Gospels, I am not sure that they will necessarily like Him when He is enshrouded in the mysterium of Pottermania. Just because a C.S. Lewis or a Rowling has used fantasy to present the Gospel does not make their medium infallible. Having taken this hard line on the matter, I would like to conclude by saying that, if anyone is edified as an adult in reading these books and is honestly drawn close to the God of the Bible rather than to some “god” out there, then so be it. I would treat such an inclination as Paul treated food offered to idols in 1 Corinthians 8.

Join us in the next Issue for the last Part of this discussion when we talk about Harry Potter and your Child.

By Reuben Kigame

Shortly after the publication of J.K. Rowling’s first book in the Harry Potter series, titled Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone in 1997, a cross-section of the Christian community went out in arms against what was largely perceived as an explicit induction of children into the world of the occult. The American church was particularly vocal in that the book was released in the States under a more alarming title, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone, a variation adopted for greater marketing potential. With the release of the second and third books, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets and Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, respectively, the barrage from church leaders grew in intensity. However, when the fourth book, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire was released, the battle lines were drawn, and the church had to make up her mind as to whether the series was good for children.

Whilst the initial response by the church to Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone was largely based on hearsay, by the fourth book, a number of her leading lights had had a chance to read through the publications. Now the debate was narrowed down to whether it was healthy for children to be introduced to the blatant magic content of Rowling’s works. It is this latter concern that I wish to explore in this and the subsequent articles to be published in the next Issues of Reason.

WHO IS J.K. ROWLING?

Joanne Kathleen Rowling, no doubt one of the wealthiest people on earth due to the sale of hundreds of millions of her books, came to popularity during the last half of the 1990s. Although a divorcee, Ms Rowling has come to be cherished as a great educator and entertainer of whole families, but especially children. Rowling, one of the greatest British minds, has partly managed such appealing authorship due to her great learning. John Granger, author of Looking for God in Harry Potter, a classical scholar of merit, has observed that Ms Rowling’s great intellectual pedigree can be attributed to her exceptional performance at secondary school where she emerged top of the class, and her high school and university preparation. At high school, she is said to have passed her A-level exams in French, German and English exceptionally. At the University of Exeter, Rowling not only took double French but also studied the classical languages, excelling in them with an unbeatable competence. Granger observes that she is familiar and fluent with the languages, philosophy and literature of the Classical and Medieval worlds. This explains why her books clearly reflect a deep understanding of concepts and principles of the works of Plato, Aristotle, Augustine and Aquinas. She has read these “greats” in the original languages with the kind of attention they deserve.

In interviews, Rowling has confessed that she loves Charles Dickens, Jane Austin and has also admitted that she is an admirer of C.S. Lewis to the point of being physically incapable of being in the same room with a Nania novel and not sitting down to read it. Her Harry Potter series is replete with allusions to these authors as well as to Shakespeare, Tolstoy, Kafka, Dostoyevsky and even George Orwell. The names of her characters, the structure and symbols used in her books are from, as she likes to put it, “the compost heap” in her mind, comprising all the books she has read and loved.

Although Ms Rowling is a professed Presbyterian (Church of Scotland) who has stated that her faith is a major key to understanding her writings, her deep knowledge and familiarity with witchcraft and its themes makes it difficult to contextualize her Christian faith. That Ms Rowling possesses a deep and sophisticated knowledge of the world of the occult is not debatable. The London Times noted it in a July 12, 2000 article titled Muggle Adventures in Potterland. The article reads, "Magical feats and spells, fantastic charms and startling metamorphoses, conjuring exploits…Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire…is crammed to the bursting with vanishings, flights, zombies, replicants, identity switches, crypto-zoological monsters," etc. To a restless, channel-surfing rhythm, Rowling switches tone, now teenage psychology, now Alastair Crowley-ish Satanism."

The research she has conducted in order to write the Harry Potter series also shows her desire to portray witchcraft and magical themes as accurately as she could. During the 1999 interview on the Diane Rehm Show, Ms Rowling confessed that she studied witchcraft and mythology in order to write her books more accurately. To quote her: "I do a certain amount of research…so when I’m mentioning a creature, or a spell…I will find out exactly what the words were, and find out exactly what the characteristics of that creature or ghost were supposed to be." (J.K. Rowling interview on The Diane Rehm Show, WAMU, National Public Radio, October 20, 1999).

Despite the above confession, church leaders like Chuck Colson and Christian conservative authors like John Granger have seen something positive in the contribution of Ms Rowling to the church. Granger, as shall be observed later, even sees the books as good aids to teaching children certain Christian themes.

WHAT ARE THE HARRY POTTER BOOKS ABOUT?

The Harry Potter books recount the adventures of an English school-boy (Harry Potter) as he advances from class to class at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. Hogwarts is not a real school, but the creation of Ms Rowling’s. Potter, a wizard in training, is portrayed as the target of attack by the worst of wizards, Lord Voldemort, and his followers called the Death Eaters. Every book in the series ends with a battle against Lord Voldemort or his evil crew.

J.K. Rowling plans to release seven books in all, each book covering one academic year at Hogwarts. By the time we went to press, we had received the fifth book in the series, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix purchased at a local bookstore in Nairobi, indicating that we are yet to see two others. But, what exactly goes on in these books?

An article in the December 1, 1999 Christian Century magazine gives a fair overview of Harry Potter’s adventures. We read:

“Harry discovers on his 11th birthday that he is the son of two legendary wizards murdered by an evil magician named Voldemort. Harry has been living with his loathsome aunt and uncle (who make him sleep in a cupboard) and their mean son, Dudley. Apprised of his real identity, Harry eventually makes his way to Hogwarts, a boarding school for wizard children, and starts learning the family trade.” It is obvious that the family trade is witchcraft and wizardry just from the name of the boarding school.

The summary printed on the back cover of the fifth book gives us an idea of how far Harry Potter has come with his adventures:

“Harry Potter is due to start his fifth year at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. His best friends Ron and Hermione have been very secretive all summer and he is desperate to get back to school and find out what has been going on. However, what Harry discovers is far more devastating than he could ever have expected…”

RESPONSE TO THE HARRY POTTER BOOKS

The sheer number of copies that are sold at every new release, which range in the millions, is certainly a clear commentary on the popularity of the Harry Potter series. Children as well as adults enjoy reading J.K. Rowling. Christians as well as non-Christians hail the books as thrilling, captivating and even educating. A U.S. consumer survey reported that over half of all children in the United States aged between six and seventeen years have read at least one Harry Potter book.

As for their popularity around the world, it had become obvious that, just in about four years, the books had been received with relish around the globe. USA Today reported: "there are 116 million books in print in 200 countries. They have been translated into 47 languages (USA Today; Monday, October 22, 2001; Life – Section D).

It is estimated that the first three Harry Potter books earned at least $480 million in three years.

When the 4^th book was released, Ms Rowling is said to have directed her publisher on how it was to be released. She is said to have orchestrated the entire release of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. One concerned American testified: “I was watching the late evening news on July 7, 2000. News cameras focused on huge crowds of kids congregated at bookstores around the country waiting for "the witching hour," midnight! What were they doing there, so long past their bed times? They were waiting to buy the 700 plus page newest release. I must admit that is hard to believe. At 12:01 a.m. July 8, 2000, bookstores doors opened and kids pressed in and began shucking out $25.95 for book #4. This was a publisher’s bonanza with advanced orders topping 1.8 million and a first printing of 5.3 million copies.

What people think of the fifth book is evident from the various comments on its back cover:

‘Suspense, secrets and thrilling action from the pen of J.K Rowling ensure an electrifying adventure that is impossible to put down.’

‘Rowling’s imagination and daring put her in a class of her own.’ The Times

‘Every seven-year-old I know is desperate to read that great paving slab of a book. The Order of the Phoenix.’ Daily Mail

‘For Christmas I would like The Order of the Phoenix, as it’s wonderfully written and is a story the whole family is following.’ Anne Diamond, Sunday Express”

Yet, the Christian community has been divided on Harry Potter. Pastor Chuck Colson was quoted as praising the Harry Potter character and his friends for their "courage, loyalty and willingness to sacrifice." One of America’s leading Christian publications, World Magazine, did not find any problem with Ms Rowling’s books either. In The May 29, 1999 issue of World Magazine, Harry Potter books were characterized as "a delight…safe, inoffensive, and non-occult." Professor Alan Jacobs of Wheaton College even advocated reading the Harry Potter books because they offer "the possibility for serious moral reflection…”

The London Times reported: "a vicar in the Church of England" held "a special Harry Potter family service…complete with wizards, pointy hats, broomsticks a game of quid ditch." (London Times – Church to lure youth with Harry Potter by Ruth Gledhill; September 1, 2000)

In the book, Looking for God in Harry Potter, John Granger maintains that Rowling’s books speak volumes about the power of the Christian message, especially in a profane culture like ours. “My thesis,” writes Granger in his introduction, “is essentially this: As images of God, designed for life in Christ, all humans naturally resonate with stories that reflect the greatest story ever told – the story of God who became man.” Granger adds, “The Harry Potter Novels – the best selling books in publishing history – touch our hearts because they contain themes, images and engaging stories that echo the great story we are wired to receive and respond to…. “He concludes that because Harry Potter books serve this purpose they are excellent vehicles for parents wanting to share the Christian message of love’s victory over death, of our relationship to God the Father through the Christ – even of Christ’s two natures and singular essence.”

But, not everyone agrees with the harmlessness of Harry Potter. On the website of Take A Stand Ministries is an article by Gregory R. Reid titled, What’s Wrong with Harry Potter. The article, which does not mince words on Potter mania, reads in part:

“On the heels of the riotous release of the new Harry Potter book, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, and the yet to be confirmed opinion by a major ministry that the Harry Potter series is harmless, I have felt it necessary to write my own comments on this issue. Many parents will not like it. Neither will some pastors. Please do NOT ask me if I care. Right now I am so angry at the level of compromise I am encountering among believers on occult matters that I am not interested in popular opinion. I am just interested in truth as I have come to understand it, according to the flawless, perfect Word of God. If you don’t like that, don’t read this.”

Reid describes Harry Potter books as “spiritual pornography” and says they are poisonous especially to the innocent children. “Harry Potter is … poison,” writes he, “What is the harm of Harry Potter? Just that it makes magic attractive, exciting, enticing. Kids look at THAT – and then they look at their own faith and that of the people in church, and oftentimes what they see is that the God of the Christians is presented as powerless, someone who is far removed from us and has no authority over evil.”

Although the secular print media in Kenya has occasionally come out as supportive of the Harry Potter series, most articles have been indifferent to the resolution of the acceptability of magic. The Christian media, on the other hand, has remained opposed to the series, ranging from the re-broadcasting of sermons by preachers such as John Hagee from the U.S. to the outright condemnation of the books through call-in sessions on Christian radio stations.

A majority of Christians object to Rowling’s books on the grounds of their magical content. They cite the fact that witchcraft is condemned by the Bible with some passages like Galatians 5:19f clearly stating that those who practice witchcraft among other sins will not inherit the Kingdom of God.

As we prepare for a fuller discussion on “The Bible and Harry Potter” and “Harry Potter and your Child” in the next issues, I propose that you try to think through a few questions:

1. What has made J.K. Rowling so successful and influential?
2. What makes something acceptable or unacceptable, especially for a Christian?
3. What would you do if you discovered that the position you have always held on this or any other question was wrong?

WHAT IS THE MEANING AND THE HISTORY OF CHRISTMAS?

The word "Christmas" does not appear anywhere in the Bible, yet the appearance of a word does not imply that what it refers to does not exist. This is the case with terms such as "trinity", "incarnation" and "rapture."

Whenever the Church uses the term "Christmas", it is with reference to the commemoration of the birth of Jesus Christ to whom all Christians direct their allegiance. Events surrounding this birth such as the recitation of the Messianic prophecies, the virgin birth, the visit of the wise men, the worship of the shepherds prompted by an angelic annunciation, etc, are enchanted and enacted in a celebrant mood. Although we notice the start of the celebration of Christmas in Rome in the year 336 A.D., its significance is evident to the disciples before this date as seen in the Gospels and the Epistles. In a Christmas sermon to an Eastern Roman empire congregation in 386 A.D., St. Chrysostom declared, "It is not ten years since this day was clearly known to us, but it has been known from the beginning to those who dwell in the West."

The following Christmas themes reveal the real meaning of Christmas:

First, the good news that Christ’s birth brought with it a sure possibility of freedom from the power and influence of sin. Matthew records the words of the angel to Joseph, "…you are to give Him the name Jesus, because He will save His people from their sins." (Matthew 1:21.) Notably, the name Jesus is the English rendering of the Hebrew name "Joshua" which means "Jehovah is salvation." Hebrews tells us that "…it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. In other words, the usual sacrifices and other salvific efforts made by man could not deal with sin. Christmas announces over and over again that man’s biggest problem, i.e. sin or evil can be dealt with through faith in Jesus Christ. Although this possibility is commemorated in another Christian festival referred to as "Easter", the news that this is possible is announced at the birth of Jesus. As one Christmas carol has put it, "Joy to the world, the Lord is come," and all that is left of you and I is to echo, "Let Earth receive her King."

Second, Christmas introduces peace and reconciliation, first with God and then among men. The host of heaven declare in Luke 2:14: "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men on whom His favour rests." It is customary at Christmas for family members to come together and recommit themselves to one another, sometimes with confession and reconciliation. This is often solidified by the exchange of gifts and the sharing of sumptuous meals. Paul emphasizes this theme when he urges in Romans that everyone does their best to live at peace with all as far as it is possible.

Third, at Christmas it is reiterated that God is not distant from us because in Christ He took on a human form to reach us at our level. John 1:14 says, "The Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us. We have seen the glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth." This is what is meant by the "incarnation." Matthew wrote, "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a Son and they will call Him Immanuel – which means ‘God with us.’" (Matthew 1:23). In this sense, Christmas is the reminder that God is accessible both for salvation and in times of need. It is a reminder that God is concerned with our human situation and is willing to help us.

ARE YOU SATISFIED BY THE WAY CHRISTMAS HAS BEEN CELEBRATED?

I think Christians have kept to the meaning of Christmas in their celebration of it. Nevertheless, the inclination to commercialize Christmas has not spared followers of Christ. They have been persuaded to buy a lot of things they do not need, tempted to go to places they ought not for entertainment, and definitely many have been tempted by greed and gluttony among other vices. It is a pity that Christmas is increasingly ceasing to be church-centred and is becoming supermarket-centred. Excessive advertizing is, perhaps, one of the greatest contributers to this state.

CHRISTMAS: SHOULD CHRISTIANS CELEBRATE IT?

Certain Christians in Church history have altogether stopped observing some events among the special days of the year labeled "Christian holidays" for the reason that they have a pagan origin. Two of these are worth mentioning. The Easter holiday is dismissed as an Eastern event in the exaltation of the Mesopotamian deity, Ishtar, variously the "Queen of Heaven." Christmas is denounced as a Graeco-Roman festival exalting the appearance of the Sun-god.

While in the latter case a serious question might be raised as to exactly what part of the year it was when Jesus was born about two thousand years ago, I do not find it a strong argument for anyone to stop observing these events altogether. Truly, Christmas might have taken place earlier in the year, perhaps as early as April or May, but, one may want to think that we do not carry the significance of events in dates but in the essence that lies behind them. It would seem more permissible for me to abandon the celebration of Christmas if what it stood for itself was the magnifying of the religion of the sun god, which it is not. In essence, what do Christians and, indeed the whole world, celebrate in Christmas?

First, every Christian and non-Christian knows it just too well that Christmas focuses on nothing else than the birth of Jesus Christ who stands at the centre of the Christian faith, not the Islamic faith; not Hinduism; not Roman mythology and, indeed, not the sun god. This Jesus is not a pagan god. This is to say that the world knows the central significance of Christmas directly or indirectly.

Second, it is a common fact that at Christmas the birth of Jesus Christ is associated with the salvation of the world from sin. Christians as well as non-Christians are aware of this. This is an important truth to proclaim. Why? Because at Christmas, the entire world is reminded again and again in its shopping sprees, in the music and other presentations in the media that the world is engrossed in sin and that the world needs a Saviour. This is a solemn reality. What better opportunity to proclaim the gospel to the whole world without forcing it on them? People just love to celebrate Christmas. Hardly anyone protests, "Let us do away with this festival that forces all of us to hear the Gospel," and yet, some Christians would rather do without this themselves. They, in fact, take the lead in trying to undo the celebration of Christmas. This, to me, is equivalent to saying that it is unfair for the world to hear the Gospel with such simplicity.

Third, Christmas is known by everyone who takes time to consciously celebrate it as a time of proclaiming love for each other. Families are brought together. Some people take time to mend broken relationships. Many selfish and greedy people are reminded and even make practical efforts to mind the welfare of the unfortunate members of society. The orphans, the street children, prisoners, refugees and all manners of the deprived are seriously considered during Christmas. A common objection is usually raised by this camp of Christmas-objecting Christians: "Why care only now and not during the rest of the year?" This state of things, I believe was best commented on by G.K. Chesterton when he wrote:

"Compromise used to mean that half a loaf was better than no bread. Among modern statesmen (perhaps the one who objects to Christmas) it really seems to mean that half a loaf is better than a whole loaf." I think this fits neither reality nor an honest pursuit of truth.

For the reason that some Christians are turning away from Christmas, I think several things are bound to happen:

1. The Christian community is gradually going to shoot its own foot in a bid to improve on Christian doctrine.
2. The skeptic is going to find a ready ground to despise Christianity and all the ideals it stands for.
3. Christians may lose a golden opportunity to evangelize a world that is just so well tuned to hear the Good News about the birth of a Saviour. What a wonderful starting point!
4. With time, we may as well put on gloom and indifference when it comes to celebration.
5. We are bound to take issue with such evangelistic approaches as that employed by Paul in the 17th chapter of the book of Acts in his adoption of the pagan "Unknown God" principle and all the "pagan" poetry he employs in this chapter. If this is the case, we must give an account of the numerous people who come to Christ through this approach.

Christmas must be upheld and celebrated for its essence rather than abandoned for what it does not purport to stand for even in the eyes of an average non-Christian.As it has been well said, we should never judge a philosophy by its abuse.

Merry Christmas everyone and may the Lord use you as you employ the common understanding of Christmas to reach many who do not know Jesus Christ!

In future issues, we will probably the question of church unity. However, in this column,we would like to answer one question, vis-a-vis, why are more and more church-planters interested in planting new churches in the urban centers than in the rural areas where they are more needed.

“Reason” interviewed Rev. Steve Maina, General Secretary of Church Army Africa, himself a Christian minister and who has planted an urban congregation in Nairobi. The following is the dialogue between Rev. Maina and R. Kigame:

Kigame: How might you define church-planting?

Rev. Maina: Church Planting is the process of initiating a new congregation in an area that does not have one. Church planting should differ from Church transfer which is the process of drawing congregation members form other denominations into a new one.

Kigame: Could you give us a general picture of what is happening in the area of church-planting in Kenya right now?

Rev. Maina: The emergence of new Churches in Kenya today is unprecedented. All kinds of Churches are emerging in all sorts of places. Most of the Churches are being planted in the urban centers for a number of reasons. I think the urban centers are the home of many people with more differing views and tastes of expressions of worship unlike the rural areas. Modernity has magnified the element of choice even in the area of worship and that by itself causes a hunger in many people for a differing expression of Church. “Prosperity gospel” and the use of Church planting as a business venture is another reason for the proliferation of new church plants in the urban areas as some “men of God’ use this as a means of survival. Then the issue of conflicts within Church leadership lead some leaders to begin a new congregation where they can have some control. Obviously, there are Church planters who have healthy reasons for planting Churches in the urban areas. I will give some reasons the latter give. Urban centers may be more strategic because of their cosmopolitan nature. Secondly, Paul seems to have used that model as he moved from place to place. He planted Churches in key urban centers. Thirdly, rural-urban migration creates a great need for churches in the urban centers. Fourthly, many poor people live in the urban centers. Finally, demographers predict greater population growth in the cities than in the rural areas in the coming decades.

Kigame: Why isn’t there as much hurry to start churches in the rural areas in this country as there is in starting them in urban centers?

Rev. Maina: I think for the reasons above. I will add two more. One is that planting Churches in rural areas is more difficult because this is where many un reached people groups are. Secondly, ignorance. I think there is a general feeling among Church leaders that there is a greater need to plant Churches in the urban areas than rural areas.

Kigame: I have known situations in some urban centers in this country where various congregations are known to hire classrooms in certain schools to the point where you could find five or more groups meeting in various of these classrooms next to each other. I have also known situations where several churches have met in the same stadium or public park. Could you comment briefly on why Christians cannot just worship together, and why the congestion of churches in the urban centers, since this trend is not as common up-country?

Rev. Maina: I guess two reasons cause the above scenario. There is a saddening reality that although redeemed by Jesus, many Christians struggle to celebrate others’ accomplishments and want to compete. It is in human nature to want to be the winner and play the best cards. It is sad that Christian leaders are often not any different. We need more role models of true unity. When a pastor of a large congregation breaks away form his congregation because of a disagreement with the board or senior pastor and plants his own church with half his previous congregation, what example does that provide for the younger emerging pastors? Won’t they do the same? So one reason is competition and the other probably cost. Since most convenient and cost effective places to plant Churches are stadiums and schools, these tend to attract a lot of interest.

Kigame: How might the urban missionary congregations be more involved in motivating pastors to minister in the rural areas?

Rev. Maina: I think God has given every Church a unique gift. Every Church must prayerfully seek God’s heart on where to plant new churches. However, we need to help urban missionary congregations be aware of the needs in the rural areas and vice versa so that we can encourage interdependence and not independence. Unfortunately in Kenya, information about Church planting on a national scale is scanty and this makes Church leaders make decisions often without adequate information.