Before I can answer the question of whether or not Christians should celebrate Halloween, I must tell you about the holiday and its meaning. Halloween originates from the ancient Celtic celebration known as Samhain (pronounced sow-in). This celebration marked the end of the summer and the beginning of the winter. It was celebrated on the winter solstice, which was usually on or around October 31st.

The Celts believed that on this night, the barrier between the spirit world and the physical world became extremely thin. So thin, in fact, that spirits could “cross over” into the physical realm. Because the spirits were believed to be wondering the physical realm, it was also believed that this time brought with it an increase of magic. The Druid priests would practice divination and make predictions about the next year. These predictions would then be spread around the village that night. This has been suggested to be a possible origin for the modern tradition of telling ghost stories on Halloween.

Huge bonfires were lit around the villages in order to scare off those spirits that might be evil or have malevolent intentions. It is believed this tradition brought about the association of bats with the holiday because mosquitoes and other flying insects would have been attracted to the light of the fires and these insects would have attracted bats. In addition to lighting the bonfires, the villagers left food and sweets on their steps for the spirits that would be wondering the night.

As the Roman Empire grew, it would eventually come to encompass the Celtic regions. The Romans were notorious syncretists—meaning they would combine the religion of other nations with their own religious beliefs. At almost the same time of year, the Romans held their own celebration to the goddess Pomona—the goddess of gardens and fruit. The apple was often used as a symbol of Pomona. As the Romans began combining their harvest festival to Pomona with Samhain, the tradition of candied apples and bobbing for apples began to take shape.

The changing and molding of Samhain didn’t stop there. Pope Gregory III is believed to be the originator of the celebration known as All Saints Day, which is celebrated on November 1. Pope Gregory had an interesting philosophy when it came to dealing with pagans and attempting to convert them. He is often credited as saying, “If you come across pagans worshiping a tree, do not cut the tree down and tell them their error. Rather, consecrate the tree to Christ and urge them to continue meeting there.” All Saints Day was also known as All Hallows Day and, therefore, October 31 became All Hallows Eve. It was only a short trip from All Hallows Eve to Halloween.

Halloween in America, however, has had plenty of ups and downs. It basically went extinct during the Great War. However, it came back with a fury in the 50’s and 60’s. This also marked the commercialization of the holiday in America. Costumes, candy, and decorations are all items most Americans deem essential to properly celebrating Halloween. The selling of these items makes Halloween only second to Christmas in terms of revenue and retail sales.

So has Halloween become and innocent night of fun? To many Americans that is certainly the case. Most people don’t know the origins of Halloween and to these people it is simply a night to let loose and have fun. However, some of the traditions ingrained into the very essence of Halloween go against the very core of the Bible.

In the Old Testament, Leviticus 19: 26 and 19:31 expressly forbid participation in acts of divination, witchcraft, or magic: Deuteronomy 18:9-14 likewise condemns these things:

When you enter the land the Lord your God is giving you, do not learn to imitate the detestable ways of the nations there. Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. Anyone who does these things is detestable to the Lord, and because of these detestable practices the Lord your God will drive out those nations before you. You must be blameless before the Lord your God. The nations you will dispossess listen to those who practice sorcery or divination. But as for you, the Lord your God has not permitted you to do so.

The New Testament also condemns these actions in Galatians 5:19-21.

The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Revelation 21:8 and 22:15 are among other passages that condemn participation in witchcraft, sorcery, divination, etc.

Here lies the crux of the matter. To participate in the full celebration of Halloween is for a Christian to align his/her self with that which is opposed to Scripture. Going back to Pope Gregory’s quote might help clarify what I mean. It is usually most unhelpful to chop the tree down because those who worshiped it will view you as hostile and refuse to listen to anything you try to tell them. However, simply consecration the tree to Christ means nothing to them. If a Christian truly wants to change them, he/she must get them to abandon the tree of their own accord and accept Christ.

I think this is the spirit of many Halloween Alternatives that churches now offer. However, I think many churches fail to demonstrate and offer Christ to those who attend these events. The population simply sees it as an endorsement by churches of the holiday. In other words, people often see this as the church in essence saying, “If you can’t beat ‘em, might as well join ‘em.”

At the same time, I think it is a huge opportunity to demonstrate the love and care of the local church to the community and to offer a safe way for families to celebrate the holiday together. Our church does offer a Halloween Alternative and has for years. While many other churches in our area also offer alternatives, our church’s is quite different. It does not attempt to simply Christianize the holiday. We simply make an atmosphere that people will enjoy, while extending an invitation to attend our church and purposely sharing the gospel in several ways (actively and passively). I am not declaring that this is the only way to handle Halloween as a Christian, but I believe it is one of the best ways to honor and glorify God on a night that represents so much of what is opposed to God. I think this principle is also demonstrated in the Bible.

When the Apostle Paul entered Athens, he spent time observing their culture. He observed how and who/what they worshiped. After he had taken time to understand their beliefs, he didn’t go to them and begin declaring that they worshiped gods that didn’t exist (i.e. chopping down the tree). However, he also didn’t go in and simply tell them that they had the wrong name (i.e. consecrating the tree to Christ). He used their own beliefs to begin sharing with them the gospel.

Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: “Men of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: to an unknown god. Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you—Acts 17:22-23, NIV.

So should Christians celebrate Halloween? If that means that they participate in the “spirit” of the holiday, absolutely not. However, to condemn those who celebrate it because they do not know Jesus Christ or what the Bible has to say about it is wrong. Christians are supposed to be representative of Chris and beacons of light. Halloween is a celebration marked by darkness and we should be reaching out with the true light—Jesus Christ. So find a way to be a messenger of light without participating in the darkness.

For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Live as children of light…Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. For it is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret. But everything exposed by the light becomes visible, for it is light that makes everything visible…Be very careful, then, how you live—not as unwise but as wise, making the most of every opportunity, because the days are evil—Ephesians 5:8-16.

What are some ways that you or your church reaches out with the gospel on Halloween?

In my previous post, I covered a few points about the documentary titled “Discovering Ardi” that aired on the Discovery Channel this past Sunday evening, October 11, 2009. In that post I gave a brief summary of the research that has taken place over the roughly 15 years since its discovery. The documentary was two hours in length and probably could have covered all of the information in about one hour. That aside, the first half of the documentary details out Ardi’s discovery and research while the second half is mainly devoted to Ardi’s public relations preparation.

The research team hired J.H. Matternes to sketch out Ardi’s skeleton. One problem here is that they don’t have a complete skeleton. They have a partial skeleton which lacks most of the central structure. The hands feet and skull comprise the majority of Ardi’s fossil remains. There is only part of the pelvis and essentially no upper torso fossil bones. This means that Mr. Matternes had to fill in the gaps when he was creating the sketch of Ardi’s skeleton. This is where some other statements in the documentary bothered me.

Owen Lovejoy, the project biologist made a statement concerning J.H. Matternes, which is as follows:

He is the equivalent of a super-computer, into which years and years of primate structure have been poured and recorded and out of which comes an almost perfect image.

Following this comment by Lovejoy, Matternes said, “My job is to interpolate from what is there and what is missing.” Then Lovejoy adds:

We can take something like a partial foot and describe and interact with him (Matternes), as to what’s present, what’s missing and then based on our joint anatomical knowledge, replace the missing part.

What really bothers me about this is that an hour was just spent describing how Ardi was completely astounding in physical structure, that she was unlike anything they had before seen. Matternes and Lovejoy may have years of familiarity with primate anatomy, but they are completely unfamiliar with what Ardi’s missing skeletal anatomy might have been. It seems to me that they assume too much in their ability to “fill in the gaps.” For example, if Ardi’s feet would not have been discovered, would they have sketched them the same? Almost certainly not. I understand their desire to try and complete the picture, but the statement that Matternes can produce “an almost perfect image” and that using their knowledge they can “replace the missing part” is going beyond what the evidence can bear.

Then there was an interesting point brought out towards the very end of the documentary. Owen Lovejoy stated:

As we track humans back through time into the fossil record and all of our individual special characteristics begin dropping out, when you get to the very bottom, it is simply bipedality that becomes the defining character of being human.

He also noted that bipedality “is a terrible form of locomotion.” Owen Lovejoy is most certainly correct that bipedality is not the fastest or most efficient method of locomotion. The documentary really emphasized bipedality as the defining characteristic of humans also. What really bothered me is the lack of honesty in this statement. Humans are not the only animal that walks upright on two legs. Therefore, the statement that bipedality is the only thing that separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom is simply not the case. What about Ostriches. Do they not use bipedality as their form of locomotion? Emus, closely related to Ostriches also use bipedality as their method of locomotion. Kangaroos use bipedality as their primary form of locomotion. There are other animals that use bipedality at times, such as penguins when they are on land. Before someone comments on this, I also realize that humans are the only animals that walk completely upright, but we aren’t the only ones that use bipedality.

One question that I know many people are asking is why did it take them 15 years to release this information if it was so revealing and ground breaking? The answer is not extremely simple. One reason is the public relations campaign that had to be prepared. They couldn’t simply release the research. They needed accompanying sketches and digital renditions of Ardi in her habitat.

Another reason is the condition of the bones. They were so fragile that the researchers removed them with clumps of dirt in plaster molds. Then in the controlled setting of a lab, they slowly and carefully removed the fossil bones from the dirt. After they were removed from the dirt, they then had to be reconstructed because of the poor condition of the fossils. The article published in the 2 October 2009 edition of Science. written by Ann Gibbons noted this very problem:

It was the find of a lifetime. But the team's excitement was tempered by the skeleton's terrible condition. The bones literally crumbled when touched. White called it road kill. And parts of the skeleton had been trampled and scattered into more than 100 fragments; the skull was crushed to 4 centimeters in height. The researchers decided to remove entire blocks of sediment, covering the blocks in plaster and moving them to the National Museum of Ethiopia in Addis Ababa to finish excavating the fossils.

In short, the fossils are in such bad condition that many researchers are skeptical that it can be claimed with any measure of confidence that Ardi walked bipedaly. Ann Gibbons notes this point too in her article, “However, several researchers aren't so sure about these inferences. Some are skeptical that the crushed pelvis really shows the anatomical details needed to demonstrate bipedality.” Who are these skeptical researchers? Paleoanthropologist Carol Ward of the University of Missouri, Columbia; Paleoanthropologist William Jungers of Stony Brook University in New York; Paleoanthropologist Bernard Wood of George Washington University in Washington, D.C.

If that’s not enough to make someone skeptical, then consider this tidbit also from the Science article:

By March of this year, Suwa was satisfied with his 10th reconstruction. Meanwhile in Ohio, Lovejoy made physical models of the pelvic pieces based on the original fossil and the CT scans, working closely with Suwa. He is also satisfied that the 14th version of the pelvis is accurate.

They went through 14 versions of the pelvis and then want everyone to believe they have solid evidence that Ardi represents the connection between humans and chimp/ape primates. I think Ardi is destined to go the way of Ida as far as sensational “missing link” claims are concerned.

I was finally able to sit down and watch the "Discovering Ardi" special last night. It was a very interesting documentary on the work that was accomplished over a period of more than a decade. There were several things which were discussed or stated in the documentary that I would like to address. Before I get into those things, a little background on this discovery is in order.

The full name of the fossil discovered is Ardipithecus Ramidus. It was discovered in Ethiopia in the Middle Awash area. They began discovering some teeth and small bone fragments from many different individuals. How they determined they were different individuals was not mentioned in the documentary. Then they began to discover fragments from the same individual. All of the bones were extremely fragmented and very delicate, to the point that the researchers cemented the bones together and lifted them out in plaster castes. Several years of excavation were conducted before recovering all of the bones which comprise the partial female skeleton that is the current topic of discussion. The researchers then began the painstaking work of removing the bones from the surrounding matrix (dirt) being careful not to damage the bones. They also transported the bones to Japan where they were scanned by a CT machine allowing them to create extremely accurate digital renderings of the bones. The researchers then hired J.H. Matternes to create full-scale reproductions of the fragments. Matternes then drew a complete skeleton followed by a skeleton covered with muscle and then skin, hair, etc. Owen Lovejoy, the project biologist then went to a company to have them create digital videos of how Ardi might have walked and moved through the terrain.

I must state that I think the researchers were very thorough in their work. From watching the documentary, it did not appear that this was hurried or that they were looking to make this “the missing link.” However, some statements made in the documentary caused me to question their conclusions. First, project paleontologist Tim White stated:

“Hominids are incredibly rare. They were rare on the landscape. They had very long life-spans, so few of them die and end up with carcasses on the landscape. They are very smart, smarter than most mammals so you don’t find very many of them trapped in the sediments. So they are extremely rare.”

Few of them die and end up with carcasses on the landscape. ..I don’t think he really thought through his statement here, because I’m sure that he would agree if I asked him if all animals eventually die. This puts one hole in his statement concerning why hominids are rare. They didn’t keep living forever or we would be finding them alive today. To be fair, I don’t think that is exactly what he meant. However, the point is still the same—it doesn’t matter if they lived 150 years or 50 years, they would all eventually die. He also claims that they were smarter than most mammals. The problem I have is that this is an assumption inferred back onto hominids because we as Homo sapiens are extremely intelligent and Tim believes that we evolved from hominids. Please hear me, I am not arguing against the point that we evolved from hominids, but I am arguing against this intelligence assumption. We don’t know how smart they were because it cannot simply be inferred from brain size.

The bones did not contain any material useful for dating the bones themselves. To explain how they dated Ardi to 4.4 million years ago, Yohannes Haile-Selassie a project paleontologist explained:

“We don’t really date the bones themselves, so we rely on geologists to give us dates for the rocks that are above and below the fossils that we are finding.”

How do they date these rocks? There were two volcanic rock bands, one above and one below the location they discovered the fossil. They then take samples from these bands and measure the amount of argon gas built up in the rocks. From this they can determine the age of the rocks. I am not familiar with this type of dating. It sounds very interesting and I will be researching this and learning more about it. One interesting point however, the two different tests came back to essentially the same date. At this point, I would think they might have asked to have the tests repeated because there was a lot of sediment between the two bands, several feet of sediment.

I will continue to make more posts on this documentary and fossil find. If you weren’t able to catch the special when it aired this past Sunday night (October 11, 2009), the Discovery Channel has the entirety of it on their website in small clips.

Click Here to Read Part 2