(avg. read time: 10–19 mins.)
Insofar as the argument against participating in Halloween depends on the claim of origins making the holiday somehow inherently evil, I think it is safe to say that there is nothing inherently wrong in engaging in Halloween festivities. Particularly innocuous are activities like dressing up in a costume and gathering with friends to enjoy each other’s company as well as converse about the characters/types that each person has dressed up as and why. Really, some of us look at Halloween as a cultural excuse to get into costume and have fun. For those who don’t do this, it could still be a service to the neighborhood, and it could assist in bonding with neighbors to have good things to hand out for kids going door-to-door. That seems like a simple and effective way to love one’s neighbor, by helping them have a good Halloween experience to remember. This is, after all, what some of the customs of All Hallows’ Eve, as well as All Saints’ Day, were designed to uphold. And if one does not celebrate Halloween, as such, by that name, for whatever reason, it can also be a good day to celebrate the Reformation. It was on October 31 over 500 years ago that Luther’s symbolic action at Wittenberg became like the falling of a small stone that starts an avalanche. It could be all the more appropriate considering how All Hallows’ Eve, All Saints’ Day, and All Souls’ Day (especially) became entangled with notions of Purgatory, and considering how the 95 Theses were against indulgences and the abuses that had developed in connection with Purgatory. These are important parts of our history to remember, and if one observes All Saints’ Day on another day, it could free up this time for Reformation Day.
Although I find no harm in celebrating All Saints’ Day when it has traditionally been celebrated in the West, provided that it is divested of notions like Purgatory and the idea that the title of “saints” properly applies to super Christians (rather than being the proper designation of Christians per se), I think there would be more appropriate times to celebrate it. If we observed it when several Eastern traditions do on the first Sunday after Pentecost, it would fit with celebrating the birth of the Church via the Holy Spirit by celebrating the departed saints who have gone before us. If we observed it when other Eastern traditions do on the first Friday after Easter Sunday, it would fit with expressing the hope we share with the departed saints in the resurrection of the dead in conformation to the resurrection of Jesus (in other words, the meditation on mortality and death that naturally comes as part of All Saints’ Day is never far from meditation on resurrection, which has been a problem in the West). In terms of narrative logic in view of the story the ecclesial calendar tells, I simply think either option in the East makes better sense than the spot it has now.
Against a Strict Abstentionism/Prohibitionism
In Part 1 I made some counterpoints to the common statements that Christians should not participate in a pagan holiday all on the assumption that Halloween originated as a pagan holiday. Now that we have seen that this is not the case, I would also like to respond to other points made by Ankerberg, Weldon, and Burroughs in favor of their abstentionist/prohibitionist view. As stated previously, I obviously agree that no Christian should participate in what is explicitly prohibited by biblical commands, such as occultic practices. But I cannot accept arguments that proceed on assumptions built on “facts” that are not really facts, such as, “If it is impossible to participate in Halloween innocently because of the very nature of Halloween day and its implications, how can we logically think we aren’t, at least in some sense, part of what it represents when we participate in any part of it?”1
Because I do not accept this assumption, I also do not accept the way in which they approach various Scriptures that they think support their claims. First, they cite 3 John 11 against “imitating what is evil.”2 This is in reference both to certain kinds of costumes and in the general practice of participating in Halloween. Of course, if one adopts a similarly extreme reading of what they think this text means, the implication would be that any re-enactment of the events of the Passion or any other event of biblical history would necessitate that Christians could not play the roles of the antagonists, for we must not “imitate” what is evil. Likewise, when Christians do public readings of texts, this would also imply that we cannot read aloud those parts of the Bible that are said by evil characters, lest we “imitate” what is evil. Rather, “imitate” does not have the sense here of simply taking on the appearance of something/someone or doing an impression of something/someone. The term in its context has more to do with following the object of the verb, so that mimicking is for the purpose of following an example, in this case of what is evil as opposed to what is good. This is borne out by the second half of the verse when the point is restated in terms of doing good and doing evil. It is also borne out by the other uses of the verb in 2 Thess 3:7, 9; and Heb 13:7, as well as the use of the noun form (“imitator”) in 1 Cor 4:6; 11:1; Eph 5:1; 1 Thess 1:6; 2:14; and Heb 6:12.
Second, they cite Phil 4:8 as if it is a prohibition against Halloween.3 After all, one cannot (apparently) think of what is true, venerable, right, lovely, reputable, excellent, and praiseworthy while celebrating Halloween. This assumption of theirs extends from their assumptions about Halloween itself, which have been shown to be false. In fact, I would think what I have brought up in the more accurate account of its history and in what I have reflected on above shows that it is completely possible to participate in Halloween and think on such things.
Third, they provide a list of texts without explaining their connection to the subject matter, as if their implications are obvious. And perhaps they are, if you accept their assumptions. But since their assumptions are faulty, let us look at the texts they list: 1 Cor 11:1; Eph 5:1–3; Deut 18:9; Jer 10:1–3; 2 Cor 6:14–18; Rom 12:9; 1 Thess 5:22; 3 John 11; Eph 5:8–11; 1 John 1:5–6.4 The first two texts use the language of imitation, which I have commented on above, but the first one will be especially notable for how it is used here, considering what will be shown about Paul’s instruction below. Neither of these texts specifically support abstention from Halloween if we do not accept the assumptions of Ankerberg, Weldon, and Burroughs. Deuteronomy 18:9; Jer 10:1–3; 2 Cor 6:14–18; Rom 12:9; and 1 Thess 5:225 are also cited on the assumptions that Halloween has pagan origins, is evil, and that these texts saying not to do what the nations do is a prohibition of Halloween per se. The last two texts are built on the imagery of light and darkness and the correlating of these things with good and evil, even though other biblical texts remind us that God created the light and the dark and God speaks out of darkness, too. But the uses of these texts in this way also are built on the aforementioned faulty assumptions.
Fourth, as shown in the most extensive quote from them in Part 1, they quote Rom 14:23, but only the last part of it. Their preferred translation of it says, “Everything that does not come from faith is sin.”6 This use of Scripture is, like all the others, built on the presumption that Halloween is of pagan origin, but there is even more going on in their use of this text. Devoid of context, this statement is used as an endorsement of a prohibitionist mindset, wherein everything that is not explicitly commanded is prohibited, or at least that is the impression left when no context is provided here. As a matter of fact, in context, this statement actually concerns conscience, doubt, and how these impact participation in matters of indifference. As such, this text and another we will draw from Paul are quite relevant for the question of participation in Halloween, just not in the way that Ankerberg, Weldon, and Burroughs think.
Halloween and Conscience
I think the divide among Christians in America could be helped with some words from Paul. Christ has set us free, free from living in subjugation to fear or desire and free to live in obedience to him as Lord. But, as Paul knew too well from his congregants and others, it is possible to misuse that freedom, especially in the presence of Christians who have a conflict of conscience. The objections sometimes also come from Christians who come from areas of the world where the occult and the demonic exercise more pronounced, explicit influence, and so, when these things are associated with Halloween, they become decidedly uncomfortable in allowing their children to participate in this holiday, and in seeing other Christians participate in it. Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8–10 provide the most extensive and poignant wisdom related to this problem. In what follows, I examine the texts in chronological order, since the former is a condensed and generalized version of the latter.7
In his letter to the Corinthians, Paul addresses the issue of meat offered to idols. Given the frequency of feasts, the number of gods, the selling of offered meat in the marketplace, and the entanglements that some Christian converts had with their pre-Christian lives in associations/guilds, the matter of how to deal with idolatrous feasts was a pressing concern for them. The Corinthians argued over the course of action and Paul refers to each side as the “weak” in conscience (those who favored abstaining) and the “strong” in conscience (those who favored partaking without idolatrous intention). There is much to say about the social characteristics of these groups, but I would rather focus the analysis on what is relevant to the issue of Halloween participation. Paul makes clear from the outset that his own views align with the “strong” about the “efficacy” of the idols and of meat offered to them. After all, there is only one God, so Christians know that there is no god behind the idols for them to worship (8:4–6). To the world there are many gods—and Paul refers to them only as “so-called” (λεγόμενοι) gods—but, in an amplification of the Shema of Deut 6:4, Paul declares there is one God (the Father) and one Lord (Jesus Christ). The problem is that this lesson can be difficult to learn for people who have been so immersed in Greco-Roman idol culture. They have trouble disentangling the food offered to the idol from the false god to which the food is offered. Without the conviction of this knowledge in their conscience, they become defiled by violating their conscience (8:7). Paul then presents an apparent counter in v. 8, as the verse or some portion thereof seems to be a quote from the strong. Even if eating or not eating in and of itself does not affect one’s status before God, the liberty to eat that the strong rightly recognize can become a stumbling block to the weak, leading them to violate their conscience (8:9–11). The act of eating may not be a sin, but it is a sin to willfully cause others to stumble in their own conscience if they lack the conviction that the strong has about the propriety (or at least harmlessness) of the action (8:12). Paul thus concludes in this section of his argument that he will never eat meat offered to idols if it causes one of his siblings in Christ to stumble (8:13).
Paul adds to this argument in ch. 9 by appealing to his rights as an apostle. Despite his rights, he restricts himself for the sake of others (9:1–12). The rights he appeals to are rights to provision, to make a living in his proclamation of the gospel (9:13–18). But since he makes no demands on them in this regard, surely they have less right to make demands on each other. As such, he is not only making an example of himself; he is asserting his authority as an apostle in another way so that by denying himself his rights in one area he can assert them in another. Likewise, he appeals to his flexibility in proclaiming the gospel. He accommodates to whomever he preaches the gospel to so that he might persuade them with the gospel without detracting from his ethos (9:19–23). He closes the chapter by appeal to an athletic metaphor, noting how important self-denial and self-discipline is to training in the gospel sphere as it is in the athletic sphere (9:24–27).
The final phase in this argument comes in ch. 10 in his appeal to Israel’s history as a warning against idolatry. First of all, he makes the link between the Israelites of Moses’s day with his own congregation even more direct as he speaks of their baptism, eating spiritual food, drinking spiritual drink, and how the source of their nourishment was the rock who was Jesus, who accompanied them in the wilderness (10:1–4). However, most of them participated in idolatry and died for it. It may have started with food and drink, but it led to fatal sexual immorality (10:5–10). Paul’s central hermeneutical principle here is that the Corinthians would do well to pay attention to this story, because though it happened to the Israelites, it was written down for the eschatological people of God as an example. It is a story to which they/we are the latest chapters (10:11–13). And while there is no real god behind the idols, there is a demonic reality behind them that misleads the worshippers. Christians would do well to remember that their Eucharist is an expression of fellowship with Christ. Thus, it follows that eating food sacrificed to idols in the context of worship ritual is fairly seen as fellowship with demons and is thus not allowed for those who worship the one true God (10:14–22). Paul thus reiterates his injunction to the strong to not seek their own advantage and to remember that just because they are free it does not mean that every exercise of freedom is a good thing and beneficial to the body (10:23–24). On that basis, he gives situational advice. First, if they come across meat in the market, they should buy it without raising questions because, as a point of creation, that meat is part of God’s provision (10:25–26). Second, if they are invited by unbelievers to meals, they should similarly eat without raising questions, being thankful for what is placed before them (10:27). Third, if the situation comes up that they are told that the meat has been offered in sacrifice, they should abstain out of consideration for the conscience of another (namely the weak) rather than call judgment on themselves because of what they give thanks for (10:28–30). In short, Christians should do whatever they do in eating or drinking to the glory of God and to the wholeness or integrity of the body (10:31–33).
In Rom 14, Paul generalizes this logic and applies it to multiple situations. Again he uses the language of weakness, though this time in reference to conviction rather than conscience per se, as a descriptor of those who put more restrictions on themselves, while stating that they are to be accepted as fellow brothers and sisters. The strong believe in eating anything while the weak eat only vegetables. Neither should judge the other, for God has welcomed them both. Both stand for judgment before God and both will be vindicated, therefore neither can legitimately be judged by the other. Likewise, some judge one day to be holier than others while others judge every day the same. In these cases of adiaphora, people should only be fully convicted in their own minds (14:1–6). Both the strong and the weak should remember that what governs their lives is the fact that they do not live or die to themselves, but to the risen Lord who is Lord of both the living and the dead. All will be accountable to God for how they have conducted their lives in service to the Lord (14:7–12). As such, believers should concern themselves with not putting stumbling blocks in front of each other. The problem is not whether or not anything is unclean or impure in itself; it is whether it is unclean or impure according to one’s conscience. Christians should seek peace with one another as fellow members of God’s kingdom. Indeed, if food and drink are matters of adiaphora, it is not worth risking the higher values of God’s kingdom—like righteousness, peace, and joy—for the sake of partaking in them. Furthermore, each person should be convinced in their minds about the appropriateness of participating in this or that eating, drinking, or observance of a day. What brings condemnation in this case is participating while one still has doubt about the action, because your own lack of conviction and conscience clearness condemns you (14:13–23)
What do all of these biblical statements have to do with Halloween participation? It is pretty clear who the equivalents are of the strong and weak in conscience, so the principal injunctions are directly applicable, though the precise situations may be different. Ideally, the weak in conscience would apply the triumph of Jesus to their lives in realizing the freedom it affords them, and they should grow towards that awareness, rather than hold the strong in conscience hostage to their own consciences (of course, such a person who would manipulate in this latter way is not really “weak” in conscience and is in no danger of being swayed, so they are not rightly in the position of the “weak”). They should also realize, lest they make every disagreement a gospel matter and cause deep and bitter division, that some practices that they are not comfortable with are matters of adiaphora.
But the strong are in the wrong when they sacrifice familial unity and harmony with their brothers and sisters for the sake of doing something that is merely permissible (not necessarily beneficial). None of the typical Halloween practices—outside of groups associated with the occult, which is obviously precluded given the principles presented in 1 Corinthians and elsewhere—are in any way aimed at devotion to other gods, but the general participation remains troublesome for the Christians who object to them. In matters of adiaphora, we should not trouble their consciences for our own sakes. If Halloween can be a good and fun way to build community with one’s neighbors, it would surely be counterintuitive for us to blatantly thumb our noses at Christians weak in conscience on this occasion. We could then be guilty of causing others who are not fully convicted in conscience to stumble, making us fulfill the role of the demons they seek to guard against. All of the above points should also help remind us that freedom misused can become a new form of slavery, as it did for the Israelites. We should heed the warnings about how this violation of the communal bond can carry us off into much worse things than the neutral-good activity we were trying to do in the first place.
This point leads me to make a note that in an era where we have the opportunity to be more aware of the universal Church via superior communication technology, it would be wise to remember the scope of this instruction. One can find a random person on the Internet that expresses objection to anything. Again, it is important to remember that those who agree with the weak in conscience should not use the deference given to them as a justification for holding their brothers and sisters hostage (for again, such a person would not truly be “weak,” but would simply be at odds with Paul and general biblical teaching). On the other hand, Paul’s instruction is tailored for local churches, since they are in occasional letters written to specific churches at specific times addressing a specific type of issue that does not come up everywhere. We are most directly beholden to our local brothers and sisters in this regard, and we are to be concerned for what makes for peace among them.
But again, as I noted above, even if we abstain from Halloween merriment out of consideration for brothers and sisters weaker in conscience, it is not enough merely to abstain. We should find other ways of actively celebrating the Lord on this day. Given the popular cultural associations of this day with death and horror—which itself was part of All Hallows’ Eve carnival elements in both acknowledgment and lampooning of the powers defeated by Christ—it is yet another opportunity to shine the light of Jesus’s resurrection as we point beyond our mortal existence in our mortal bodies to the everlasting existence in resurrected bodies conformed to the Risen Jesus. One way to do this, especially among Protestants, is to emphasize Reformation Day and what it stands for, as a call to semper reformanda, to never settle for where we are at any time, to always strive towards greater knowledge of God by the movement of scriptural reformation. By this means, the strong can be reminded of the need for self-denial while the weak can be called to greater knowledge and the greater conviction it brings. We can see how Reformation Day and Halloween eventually come together in a meaningful way as we commend the day as a celebration of our Lord, of the community he has made us, and of the community he has given us, a community he made for us long before we even existed.
Ankerberg, Weldon, and Burroughs, Facts, 37.
Ankerberg, Weldon, and Burroughs, Facts, 35–36.
Ankerberg, Weldon, and Burroughs, Facts, 37.
Ankerberg, Weldon, and Burroughs, Facts, 38–39.
This text is sometimes translated as referring to abstaining from every “appearance” of evil, as in to avoid even that which somehow “looks like” evil (presumably, even if it is not, in fact, evil). But “form” is the better translation here, so as to say that evil should be abstained from, no matter its form.
Ankerberg, Weldon, and Burroughs, Facts, 45.
A friend of mine from Myanmar and PhD student at Asbury, Hram Hulian, has made clear that there are some cultures, such as his own, in which the application of Paul’s counsel here is more direct than those of us who appeal to it for principles. He is studying 1 Cor 8 in particular for his dissertation in order to address his own context with what he learns from this text.