The Confusion of Christmas

Are you confused about Christmas? Seems a lot of people are, and although we are geographically far removed from the melee surrounding "Merry ????", the blow-by-blow accounts come to us via Internet. The debate in the US over the offensive nature of Christmas and the need to eliminate references to Jesus' birth is an echo of what we hear and read about what has gone on in the UK. In response, it's common to hear statements about "putting Christ back in Christmas," and an article I read today used the phrase about putting "Christians" back in Christmas, a reference to the fact that some churches have cancelled services on Christmas Day.

A Brief Cultural Detour: We won't be having services on Christmas Day, either. In the 30 Christmases we've spent on Madeira, we've never had services, not even when Dec. 25 was a Sunday. This is the one day of the year when there is no public transportation, and although today the percentage of our group that has to depend on public transportation is smaller than in the early years, the Madeiran concept of how Christmas Day is to be spent is still in effect. Everyone stays home; it is as if aliens had kidnapped the island's entire population. This was especially true when we first came, as fewer people had cars and they couldn't go anywhere. So, we have a Christmas Eve service. Christmas is such a major event to Madeirans that they simply refer to it as "a Festa" = "the Feast", as if there were no others.

Analyzing the confusion: As I said, I've followed the debate regarding Christmas "from afar", and at the risk of being written off as a heretic (wouldn't be the first time) or being accused of deserting to liberalism, I offer a thought or two on the subject. As I see it, this confusion over the ownership of Christmas was bound to come, sooner or later. People ask me if I celebrate Christmas, and I never know quite what to say. I celebrate the birth of Jesus, yes...but I do that all year round. Do they mean the "other" Christmas...the commercialized, over-the-top party festival with its roots in paganism? No. Abbie decorates the house with greenery and seasonal flowers; lights are pretty. I like to give presents that are thought out and meaningful...somehow in the process I get presents, too. That's OK, but it's the giving that's fun. But summing up the history of this season, since it is not Biblically ordained, nor was it practiced by the apostolic churches, I conclude that this confusion can be explained by the fact that:

A pagan party (celebrating the winter solstice) was hijacked by outsiders (Christians) for the purpose of celebrating something important to them (the birth of the Savior). Now the world wants its celebration back, but free of the contamination of Christian doctrine. (I read one article recently that pointed out the fact that an appeal by evangelicals to the principles of the Pilgrim Fathers in this particular would backfire. The Puritans, apparently, were opposed to Dec. 25 as being unscriptural. Put Christ "back" into Christmas? He wasn't part of the pagans' winter festival to begin with.)

Someone recently sent me an article written by A.W. Tozer on the meaning of Christmas. Tozer's point was that Christmas, even for evangelical Christians, is more associated with emotional and sentimental feelings (trees, decorations, foods, parties, gifts, Santa Claus, reindeer, lights) than theology (the incarnation of God, the Word that became flesh).

Is there a solution? One solution would be for Christians to give the pagans their party back, let them call it what they will, and start a new Christmas based on the theology of the Virgin Birth alone. Since no date, including Dec. 25, was set in Scripture as the day of Jesus' birth, any day of the year will do. How about a random drawing? Put 12 balls in a bag, and pick out a month; using numbered balls, choose a day of the month. It could be Sept. 2, or April 20. In the second case, you might get Christmas and Easter on the same day. Biblically, I don't have a problem with that, since you can't separate the significance of Jesus' birth from His death and ressurrection, but it would probably confuse a lot of people. In any event, if we give the pagans their party back, they would have to agree to let Christians celebrate freely the birth of Jesus. Of course, if churches were to celebrate the birth of the Lord in a strictly Biblical manner, it wouldn't be "Christmas", would it? We'd be in church, singing and praising God for the gift of His Son, like the angels and the shepherds did. All those other traditions that mean "Christmas" to us would most likely be returned to the pagans, along with their party. (By the way, I can't imagine "chestnuts roasting on an open fire" being very Christmassy to folks in Brazil or other southern hemisphere climes.) I wonder how large a following the "new Christmas" would have? My guess is that the number would be about the same as those who really know the meaning of Jesus's incarnation today, in spite of everything else that's been attached to the season.

I know no one is going to take my suggestion seriously. We who do know something of the significance of that birth in Bethlehem will have to go on doing our best to present the truth to others for whom this may be the only time of year they have even a passing interest in hearing some word from the Bible. It is a sad state of affairs when talking about the manger or referring to the Biblical narrative is considered a public offense, and the religious tradition of Christmas cannot even be mentioned in schools. Sad, yes, but not surprising. You'd be mad, too, if someone stole your party.

MORAL TO THE STORY: The church is in the world to be a witness---that's a mission; when the world gets in the church, you can expect nothing but confusion.