FaithFusion offers blogs and columns on
many topics: storytelling, society and culture, philosophy, religion,
politics, science, and especially “deep doctrine magic” about
all seven.
Very early Christmas morning, at least in my time zone ...
I thought would repost some thoughts originally written for yet another NarniaWeb forum topic. This is a subject I had hoped to take up here, in column form; but as happens occasionally, I started writing there first, then finished, looked and found I had incidentally written more than 1200 words. ...
'Tis very interesting, the aversion some Christians, or Churchians, have to Christmas.
I've mentioned before this odd thing about those big bad secularists — who can't stand Nativity scenes at county courthouses, or even Santa Claus hats on bus drivers — being oddly joined in their opposition to Christmas by a few of those frowny-faced Christians.
What? What? Secularists opposing a public representation of Santa? Why, yes indeed. And here we might have thought Santa was part of that Pagan aspect of Christmas and so those mean ol' Secularists would actually like him or something.
First, perhaps we might myth-bust the whole notion that Christmas Was A Pagan Holiday That the Early Church Co-Opted. I will agree, the modern Church does tend to stay in the habit of stealing stuff because it's failed to be creative and blaze trails on its own. But did the early Church do that? right when it was incidentally generating all kinds of original work? Some who've studied the subject, including World magazine columnist Gene Edward Veith, say that's nothing of the sort. From Veith's Dec. 2, 2005 column:
Why December 25?
The origin of Christmas had nothing to do with paganism
According to conventional wisdom, Christmas had its origin in a pagan winter solstice festival, which the church co-opted to promote the new religion. In doing so, many of the old pagan customs crept into the Christian celebration. But this view is apparently a historical myth—like the stories of a church council debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, or that medieval folks believed the earth is flat—often repeated, even in classrooms, but not true.
William J. Tighe, a history professor at Muhlenberg College, gives a different account in his article “Calculating Christmas,” published in the December 2003 Touchstone Magazine. He points out that the ancient Roman religions had no winter solstice festival.
True, the Emperor Aurelian, in the five short years of his reign, tried to start one, “The Birth of the Unconquered Sun,” on Dec. 25, 274. This festival, marking the time of year when the length of daylight began to increase, was designed to breathe new life into a declining paganism. But Aurelian's new festival was instituted after Christians had already been associating that day with the birth of Christ. According to Mr. Tighe, the Birth of the Unconquered Sun “was almost certainly an attempt to create a pagan alternative to a date that was already of some significance to Roman Christians.” Christians were not imitating the pagans. The pagans were imitating the Christians.
[. . .]
Jesus was certainly considered a great prophet, so those church fathers who wanted a Christmas holiday reasoned that He must have been either born or conceived on the same date as the first Easter. There are hints that some Christians originally celebrated the birth of Christ in March or April. But then a consensus arose to celebrate Christ's conception on March 25, as the Feast of the Annunciation, marking when the angel first appeared to Mary.
[. . .]
This celebrates Christ's birth in the darkest time of the year. The Celtic and Germanic tribes, who would be evangelized later, did mark this time in their “Yule” festivals, a frightening season when only the light from the Yule log kept the darkness at bay. Christianity swallowed up that season of depression with the opposite message of joy: “The light [Jesus] shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it” (John 1:5).
Regardless of whether this was Christ's actual birthday, the symbolism works. And Christ's birth is inextricably linked to His resurrection.
But even if Christmas had originally began as a “pagan holiday” ... well I would be willing to accept that premise, just for the challenge of it anyway, and fire back a volley of arguments stemming from the central idea of “So what?!”
If something began as “secular,” that in no way somehow means it cannot be redeemed.
Lewis and Tolkien did this with “pagan” mythology. Centaurs, fauns, satyrs and river gods, anyone? (River “gods”?! Agh! there's only one God!) Without either of them, it's very doubtful either of us would even be here talking about this sort of thing.
Also, consider a famous anecdote about William Booth, founder of the Salvation Army — some of you would know them as those people in fun blue uniforms ringing bells in malls and other shopping-oriented zones. It seems the fledgling charity organization back in the late 19th century had taken to appropriating then-popular “bar tunes” for use in their unorthodox worship practices.
It seems in 1882, Booth attended a theater presentation in which a vocalist sang a number entitled, “Bless His Name, He Sets Me Free.” A horrified someone-else told him that it was a disgusting sound — “Champagne Charlie Is My Name.”
“That settles it,” William Booth famously declared. “Why should the Devil have all the best tunes?”
An early pamphlet made the Army's position clear by saying that it' considers all music sacred when used with holy purpose'. For his Christmas message to War Cry readers of 1880 William Booth had already written: ' Secular music, do you say, belongs to the devil? Does it? Well, if it did I would plunder him for it, for he has no right to a single note of the whole seven. . . . Every note, and every strain, and every harmony is divine, and belongs to us. . . . So consecrate your voice and your instruments. Bring out your comets and harps and organs and flutes and violins and pianos and drums, and everything else that can make melody. Offer them to God, and use them to make all the hearts about you merry before the Lord.'
'Tis the same with holidays. Why should the Devil “have” all the best ones? Frivolity and fun are not his inventions — Satan and Co. can only steal and corrupt the holy pleasures God has already established. “All [Hell's] research so far has not enabled us to produce one,” His Utter Subliminity Screwtape complained in a letter to his nephew Wormwood.
Christmas is one of the ultimate, current-world aspects of Christian Hedonism — our enjoyment of God, His truths, His ways, His gifts and our future with Him. I suppose some folks, though, seem bound and determined to choose un-Biblical “spiritual masochism,” as if bland attitudes, avoidance of joy and laughter and constant righteous-living-is-my-stern-duty mindset are somehow more Spiritual.
I haven't heard any of that here, of course. It's NarniaWeb, after all. But be aware that this un-Biblical mindset had infiltrated the Church and resulted in some spinoff ideas.
Just about every unspoiled element of Christmas, exchanging gifts, lights, traditions, music, scented candles, family, friends, good-will-toward-men-upon-whom-His-favor-rests, and altogether celebrating the incarnation of God in the form of His created ones ... this is wonderous, this can be holy, this can further glorify God as we enjoy Him forever!
At first I was not sure what to call this little impromptu Christmas “band.” It's an admitted departure from the usual material available here. So I finally settled on the above title, self-plagiarized from a long story / short novel I wrote this time last year. However, no one by those names actually exists in this hastily assembled effort.
So far, “they” have only two tracks available. But if time becomes available between now and Christmas Day — or maybe even after that — you just may find yet another MP3 or two made available here ... for your enjoyment, or otherwise.
The Boar's Head in Hand Bear I performed by Henry Walden, another character from the aforementioned Christmas-related long story / short novel written last year
But at least the sign I mentioned there referenced the Gospel, albeit confusingly.
This is different. This is a sign that basically tells people — and people outside the church — an utterly false idea: that if they pray more, God will like them more. Not good.
So here begins a possibly new blog “series,” consisting of fairly simple responses to signs like this.
You’ll likely not be surprised at one of the general points of this column: Yes, we can call this time of year Christmas, and yes, people who pretend like we shouldn’t are not at all correct.
I wrote about this last year, and the year before. So did hundreds of others, in and out of print, on and off blogs. Here I attempt a summary of the basic arguments, which most conservative pundits are busily informing Liberals they might stuff up their secularist stockings this year:
“‘Separation of church and state’ is not in the Constitution.”
“Christmas is an important part of our cultural heritage and should be respected.”
“Ninety-five percent of Americans celebrate Christmas anyway.”
“The last time I checked, the holiday was Christmas.”
And, of course, “Jesus is too the Reason for the Season!”, etc.
All of these arguments are true, to be sure. Yet they’re sometimes easily knocked down by informed Liberals, at least in the view of those who don’t pay much attention.
For instance, argument 1 results in rebuttals attempting to show that “religious neutrality” is best anyway. And arguments 2 through 5 get whined about because of the Tolerance Premise: that is, we must be Tolerant of even minorities who are offended by the cultural heritage and the idea of the day itself. Thus the nicer-toned, informed Liberals claim that those who want to celebrate Christmas are fine, but they should just do it privately. And so on.
I’m ready to make another argument, and one that on the surface may seem insulting to those who agree with the Tolerance Premise. But read on. I think you’ll find I actually respect Liberals in this.
The Wussy Indictment
Liberals play-act as though wishing someone “Merry Christmas” or allowing The Nativity Story film promo posters for a Chicago festival would offend countless individuals. What kind of “offense”? It seems as though these people will gasp in astonishment, cut to their hearts, weeping in anguish at the very concept that someone out there may advocate a view different from theirs’. And then they immediately get the vapors and faint.
Here’s my argument: If you out there are truly like that, you are an absolute wuss. A pathetic, intellectual coward. Not even worth engaging in discussion, bothering about, hiring, and certainly not worth catering to in society altogether.
My hasty amendment here is that perhaps almost no one is truly like this — perhaps it is merely a myth by the “progressive” propaganda pushers. In the name of establishing their own religion of Secularism nationwide, they’re just pretending thousands of people out there are weeping in anguish and fainting.
But let’s assume this is true. If so, are you really this petrified about alternative ways of looking at the world? The way the secular “separation-anxiety” vultures squawk, one could actually think all of you Christmas-decliners out there are in sheer panic over the thought of seeing a single courthouse crèche.
Do you realize your absolutely wussy life outlook? Might you see now that all your whining actually exposes informed, active Christ-followers as ten times more courageous than you? Do you realize that true culturally involved Christians put up with opposing ideas all the time? and often for sheer fun anyway?
Trading ideas in the marketplaces
Guess what. Last year I became a Star Trek fan. This is very often a blatantly secular-Humanist franchise. Kirk, Picard, Sisko and the whole Federation espouse basic moral virtues right along with a secular-soaked ideology of future human progress and Godlessness. And I don’t care; I enjoy it all.
Meanwhile I appreciate hearing about other views. Currently I’m reading a book about Islamic messianic prophesies. For a while my better friends in college were non-Christians with weird beliefs.
Stacks of Christians read about other religions for fun, or to learn how to dialogue with their adherents. Christians put up all the time with white-outed inch-high cross pictures on metro-city council seals, bare spots on courthouse lawns, “holiday tree ornaments” and “holiday songs” when Hanukkah doesn’t involve tree-decoration and not one song is about something called “Kwanzaa.”
Christians take in Star Wars and The Matrix and all manner of alternate-worldview films, very often because the Christians are smart enough to discern the good elements in them. They’re used to hearing about other religions all the time. They buy secular magazines, books, DVDs, theme-park passes.
And consider this, perhaps the culmination of this column’s contention: when was the last time you heard about a Christian legal group suing to get pumpkins, crêpe-paper green witch heads and grinning plastic skeletons removed from library doors, because Halloween offends us? Do you realize the disgusting religious origins of this occultist little occasion? Don’t you know “separation of church and state” means no one should endorse the “holiday” of Wiccans and Satanists? and thus cause Christians to scream, faint or perhaps even die? Ever think of that?
No. Christians are not that wussy. And neither should the secularists be.
Tolerance is a two-way street
None of the above should generalize Christians, of course. The somewhat-backward, subculture-oriented types among some churches still recoil from anything, any belief, that makes them feel the slightest bit uncomfortable. I’ve dealt with them elsewhere in all the Churchianity columns.
But if anything, many Christians are going to the opposite extreme, grabbing everything secular they can get, sometimes trying to clone it for propaganda purposes.
At this point, then, I must reluctantly claim this: Christians have more guts than the scream,-get-vapors-and-faint secularist citizens. In the marketplace of ideas, you’re being pummeled, because you can’t even stand to analyze the market value of an alternate belief element.
Or maybe, just maybe, the supposed Offense Wimps can prove otherwise.
Try to see things from the Christians’ point of view for a change. You have your beliefs (though you may smugly think them “non-beliefs”); and we have ours. We’ll put up with your ideas if you put up with Christianity. That’s 50-50, true tolerance. We can meet you halfway. Deal or no deal?
Because if this “I’m offended!” utter cultural cowardice keeps up, we’re coming after Halloween.