Are Birthdays Sinful?

 

Introduction

The debate over birthday celebrations has arisen among certain Christian groups and non-Christian religious movements, such as Jehovah’s Witnesses. The primary concern stems from the fact that the only two explicitly recorded birthdays in Scripture—those of Pharaoh and Herod—are associated with negative events. However, this argument assumes that the circumstances surrounding these celebrations condemn the practice itself, rather than the immoral choices of the individuals involved. Others, however, view birthdays as an opportunity for gratitude and reflection on God’s blessings. This article examines the biblical evidence, theological perspectives, and historical context to demonstrate that birthdays are not inherently sinful and can be observed in a way that honors God.

Biblical Mentions of Birthdays

The Bible does not explicitly command or forbid birthday celebrations, but it does mention two occasions where rulers marked their birthdays:

1. Pharaoh’s Birthday (Genesis 40:20-22)
   "On the third day, which was Pharaoh’s birthday, he gave a feast for all his servants. He elevated the chief cupbearer and the chief baker among his servants. Pharaoh restored the chief cupbearer to his position as cupbearer, and he placed the cup in Pharaoh’s hand. But Pharaoh hanged the chief baker, just as Joseph had explained to them."
   
   While Pharaoh’s birthday celebration included an execution, the text does not condemn the act of marking a birthday itself.
   
   

2. Herod’s Birthday (Matthew 14:6-11)
   "When Herod’s birthday celebration came, Herodias’s daughter danced before them and pleased Herod. So he promised with an oath to give her whatever she asked. Prompted by her mother, she answered, 'Give me John the Baptist’s head here on a platter.' Although the king regretted it, he commanded that it be granted because of his oaths and his guests. So he sent orders and had John beheaded in the prison. His head was brought on a platter and given to the girl, who carried it to her mother."
   
   In this case, Herod’s immoral decision, not the birthday celebration itself, led to John the Baptist’s execution.
   
   

Some opponents of birthdays argue that because both of these recorded instances involve tragic events, the practice itself should be avoided. However, such reasoning fails to recognize that birthdays, like any event, are shaped by the intent and behavior of those who celebrate them. Scripture does not condemn birthdays, nor does it present them as inherently evil.

Refuting the Argument That Birthdays Promote Self-Worship

Certain Christian and non-Christian groups argue that birthdays encourage self-worship, which contradicts biblical teachings on humility. However, celebrating a birthday does not inherently mean idolizing oneself. Instead, birthdays can be an opportunity to:

• Thank God for life (Psalm 139:13-16)
  "For it was you who created my inward parts; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I will praise you because I have been remarkably and wondrously made. Your works are wondrous, and I know this very well. My bones were not hidden from you when I was made in secret, when I was formed in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw me when I was formless; all my days were written in your book and planned before a single one of them began."
  
  

• Reflect on God’s blessings (James 1:17)
  "Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, who does not change like shifting shadows."
  
  

• Celebrate with gratitude (Philippians 4:6)
  "Don’t worry about anything, but in everything, through prayer and petition with thanksgiving, present your requests to God."
  
  

A birthday celebration can be centered on gratitude rather than self-glorification, making it a meaningful occasion rather than a sinful act.

Historical Christian Perspectives on Birthdays

Early Christians did not widely celebrate birthdays, but this was due to cultural reasons rather than theological prohibitions. Some early church fathers viewed birthdays skeptically because of their association with pagan customs. However, this does not mean birthdays are inherently sinful—many traditions have evolved to be Christ-centered.

For example, Christmas, which celebrates the birth of Jesus, was initially not observed by early Christians. Over time, it became a significant Christian holiday. Similarly, birthdays can be celebrated in a way that honors God rather than indulging in excess or vanity.

Conclusion

The Bible does not condemn birthday celebrations, nor does it suggest that they are inherently sinful. While Pharaoh and Herod’s birthdays were associated with negative events, the act of celebrating a birthday itself is not condemned. Instead, birthdays can be an opportunity to thank God, reflect on His blessings, and celebrate life in a Christ-centered manner.

Christians who choose to celebrate birthdays can do so with humility, gratitude, and a focus on God’s goodness. As long as the celebration does not involve sinful behavior, there is no biblical basis for considering birthdays inherently wrong.

The Cost of Purity: How Legalistic Love Objectifies and Undermines True Intimacy

Legalism at the Heart of Purity and Courtship Culture

The purity movement and its associated courtship culture began with an earnest desire to protect young people from sexual sin and offer a clear framework for both moral growth and healthy relationships. Over time, however, that noble intention gave way to a rigid set of externally imposed rules. Prominent figures like Bill Gothard, Paul Washer, and Joshua Harris (who later divorced his wife and renounced his faith) advocated for a perspective in which any form of dating or emotional intimacy outside an approved, divinely sanctioned courtship was not only considered risky but inherently sinful. Paul Washer’s assertion that "recreational dating is heretical [and] not scriptural" encapsulated this all-or-nothing approach, effectively turning a heartfelt journey of discipleship into a strict checklist of dos and don’ts. Biblically, while there is a call to live a life that is "pure in heart" (Matthew 5:8), the New Testament also emphasizes grace, forgiveness, and the transformative power of God’s love—not a transactional accumulation of "merits" that qualify one for the ideal marriage. Rather than treating moral behavior as a form of spiritual currency that guarantees divine rewards, the New Testament invites believers into a dynamic relationship with God marked by vulnerability and authentic growth. In contrast, the legalistic system inherent in purity culture reduces righteousness to a tally of prescribed rules rather than celebrating the genuine renewal of the heart. (1)

Having experienced purity culture firsthand, I observed how symbols of commitment—rings, contracts, and commitment cards—were used to convert personal purity into a transactional asset. These tokens reduced the pursuit of a transformed heart and genuine intimacy to a set of external validations, where one’s eligibility for a divinely rewarded future depended entirely on meeting rigid standards. Not only does this approach run counter to Scripture’s caution against making vows (Matthew 5:33-37), it also burdens young believers with fear, shame, and the unrealistic expectation that their moral worth is quantifiable.

The Promise of Purity as a Form of Prosperity Gospel

An especially troubling aspect of the purity movement is its striking parallel to the prosperity gospel. In conventional prosperity teachings, material or personal blessings are seen as rewards for faith and obedience. Similarly, purity culture presents the attainment of a "pure" lifestyle as a kind of investment into one’s future—if you remain sexually and emotionally untainted, God will reward you with the perfect spouse and an impeccable marriage. This incentive structure effectively commodifies purity: it turns the pursuit of sexual abstinence and carefully regulated emotional boundaries into a merit-based system where relational worth is earned.

Joshua Harris, whose 1997 bestseller I Kissed Dating Goodbye influenced an entire generation, encapsulated this worldview by promising that steadfast purity would lead directly to a successful, sanctified marriage. Over time, however, Harris and others have been forced to reckon with the practical and emotional toll of this approach, as well as with narratives of broken relationships and disillusionment. The notion that purity is a "pay-to-play" system—if you are pure enough, you will eventually receive a reward—is not only theologically questionable but also potentially damaging psychologically. It shifts the focus from sincere emotional growth and genuine relational investment to a rigid performance metric that, if unmet, brands one as "damaged goods" for life. (2)

The Problem of "Emotional Purity" and Its Consequences

A central tenet of the modern purity message is the concept of "emotional purity." Advocates argue that young men and women must vigilantly guard their hearts—not just their bodies—by suppressing any form of budding emotional intimacy that might lead to sin. According to this doctrine, permitting a friend or a potential romantic interest to "claim a piece of your heart" imperils your future capacity to love your eventual spouse fully. This teaching, which equates emotional vulnerability with the loss of one’s capacity for authentic love, encourages a view of the heart as a finite, fragile commodity that must be budgeted and safeguarded at all costs.

In practice, such teachings create a paradox. On the one hand, they seek to protect emotional integrity by discouraging what is perceived as reckless attachment. On the other, they enslave young people to a fear-based model where authentic emotional expression—the very foundation of intimacy—is devalued. The call for "emotional purity" reinforces a rigid, transactional view of human relationships in which any deviation from the ideal is seen as catastrophic. As critics from sources like Kindred Grace have pointed out, this approach not only stigmatizes normal emotional development but also mistakes emotional risk for moral failure—a miscalculation that can leave lasting psychological scars. (3)

Social and Relational Implications

The legalistic demands of purity culture have far-reaching consequences. Young people raised within this framework are often pressured into premature commitments, leading many to marry early—or, in some cases, to settle for the first promise of romance that appears "safe" or sanctioned by their community, even if that partner does not represent the best fit for a lifelong commitment. This rush to wed can result in relationships that are emotionally underdeveloped, fraught with unrealistic expectations, and, in some instances, even abusive. When a marriage is viewed as the ultimate reward for having adhered to purity rules, love becomes objectified. A spouse is no longer appreciated as a complex, co-evolving partner but is reduced to the "prize" for having maintained a certain standard—the equivalent of a spiritualized version of objectification, one that substitutes a contractual reward for the messy, often challenging process of genuine relational growth.

Moreover, when young individuals internalize the idea that any deviation from prescribed emotional and sexual behaviors permanently mars their eligibility for a healthy marriage, the resulting feelings of shame and inadequacy can lead to further relational and mental health difficulties. The steep cost of such rigid rules is evident in stories of those who, after years of self-imposed isolation and fear of vulnerability, find themselves ill-equipped to engage in the messy, real work of sustaining a marriage. This legalistic mindset not only misses the broader biblical narrative of redemption and grace but also risks perpetuating cycles of emotional dysfunction and interpersonal abuse. (4)

Reclaiming a Biblical Understanding of Grace and Relationships

A balanced reading of Scripture suggests that while purity is indeed important, it must be understood within the broader context of God’s grace and the redemptive work of Jesus. The Bible commends a transformation of the heart—not strict adherence to a set of legalistic norms—and sees marriage as a sacred, covenantal relationship where mutual vulnerability, forgiveness, and growth are more vital than any externally imposed standard of purity. By reducing courtship to a series of checklists and rewarding adherence with an objectified vision of an ideal marriage, purity culture not only strays from the heart of the gospel but also risks creating a system that commodifies personal relationships. In contrast, biblical love is about seeing each other as whole human beings in need of healing, grace, and constant renewal—a dynamic far removed from the transactional mindset promoted by the purity movement.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the modern purity movement and its associated courtship culture represent a legalistic distortion of biblical ideals. By teaching that both physical and emotional purity are prerequisites for a "reward" marriage, influential figures transform intimate, evolving relationships into a meritocratic game. This approach mirrors aspects of the prosperity gospel by suggesting that meticulous self-discipline will guarantee divine compensation in the form of the perfect spouse. However, rather than fostering genuine, nurturing intimacy, these teachings can lead to alienation, premature commitments, and even abusive dynamics. Ultimately, such a view not only misrepresents the biblical call to holiness—which focuses on inner transformation rather than rule-keeping—but it also objectifies relationships, reducing the deeply spiritual gift of marriage to a mere prize for personal purity.

Further Thoughts: This critique invites us to reconsider how we interpret biblical calls to purity in a way that honors the complexity of human emotion and relationships. For those involved in pastoral care, youth ministry, or theological scholarship, it is imperative to balance moral guidance with a robust understanding of grace, recognizing that authentic intimacy—romantic, emotional, and spiritual—requires risk, vulnerability, and a continual process of growth rather than a preordained, reward-based system. The challenge is to reclaim a narrative of love that does not condition the sacred promise of marriage on human perfection but opens it to the messiness, beauty, and redemptive power of genuine human connection.

Testing the Spirits: Why the Continuing Church of God Fails the Biblical Standard

 

Introduction: The Call for Discernment

In a time when new theological movements frequently emerge, Christians must remain steadfast in discerning truth from deception. The Continuing Church of God (CCOG) presents itself as a restoration of early Christianity, claiming to uphold the original teachings of Christ and the apostles. However, upon closer examination, its doctrines and practices reveal significant departures from orthodox Christian faith. This article explores the origins, history, and theology of the CCOG, highlighting why it diverges from biblical Christianity and why believers should approach it with caution.

Origins and History

The Continuing Church of God was founded by Dr. Bob Thiel in 2012. Thiel, a former member of the Living Church of God, established the CCOG after claiming to receive divine revelations affirming his prophetic role. (1) The group identifies itself as the Philadelphia remnant of the Church of God, tracing its spiritual lineage to the early Christian church.

The CCOG asserts that mainstream Christianity has deviated from the original teachings of Christ, positioning itself as the true continuation of the faith. It emphasizes prophetic interpretations, end-time warnings, and adherence to Old Testament laws, including dietary restrictions and Sabbath observance.

While the Church of God tradition has historical roots in the Worldwide Church of God, founded by Herbert W. Armstrong, the CCOG represents a further splintering of this movement. Armstrongism, known for its unique eschatological interpretations and strict observance of Mosaic laws, profoundly influences the CCOG’s teachings. (2) However, unlike groups affiliated with the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR)—which emphasize modern apostles, charismatic gifts, and dominion theology—the CCOG follows a distinct theological path rooted in Armstrong’s legacy rather than NAR’s charismatic framework.

Theological Divergences

The theology of the Continuing Church of God significantly diverges from orthodox Christianity in several key areas:

1. Binitarianism vs. Trinitarianism

Unlike mainstream Christianity, which affirms the Trinity—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—the CCOG adheres to binitarianism, recognizing only the Father and the Son as distinct persons in the Godhead. This rejection of the Holy Spirit as a distinct divine person contradicts centuries of Christian doctrine upheld by Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant traditions.

2. Legalism and Old Testament Practices

The CCOG insists that Christians must observe Old Testament laws, including circumcision, dietary restrictions, and strict Sabbath observance. This legalistic approach conflicts with the New Testament teachings of grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8-9), where salvation is not dependent on adherence to Mosaic Law but on Christ’s redemptive work.

3. Prophetic Claims and Eschatology

Dr. Bob Thiel claims to have received divine revelations, positioning himself as a prophetic figure. The CCOG places heavy emphasis on end-time prophecy, often interpreting global events as signs of imminent tribulation. While biblical prophecy is an essential aspect of Christian faith, the CCOG’s speculative interpretations and self-proclaimed prophetic authority raise concerns about theological accuracy and spiritual manipulation.

4. Rejection of Mainstream Christian Doctrines

The CCOG rejects many foundational Christian doctrines, including the immortality of the soul, traditional views on hell, and the concept of salvation by grace alone. Instead, it promotes a unique interpretation of biblical eschatology based on Armstrongism. (3)

Why Christians Should Exercise Discernment

By rejecting the Trinity, enforcing legalistic adherence to Old Testament laws, promoting speculative prophetic claims, and straying from core Christian doctrines, the Continuing Church of God presents significant theological concerns. Scripture explicitly warns believers against this kind of distortion:

"But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, a curse be on him!" (Galatians 1:8, CSB).

Conclusion: Standing Firm in Biblical Truth

As Christians, we are called to test every teaching against the Word of God (1 John 4:1). While the Continuing Church of God claims to uphold biblical truth, its theological framework diverges significantly from the gospel of Christ. Believers must remain steadfast in sound doctrine, rejecting movements that distort the message of salvation and impose legalistic burdens.

In a world filled with spiritual deception, let us hold fast to the truth of Scripture, relying on the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the wisdom of the Christian community. Discernment is not merely an intellectual exercise—it is a spiritual safeguard against error.