As a Christian, I am offended by your comments.  We are supposed to respect religious belief here at Talk2Action.  Please follow our rules.  They are here for a reason.

Chip's post started out as a revelation of the possible antisemitic origins of the contemporary war on Christmas narrative.  Quite an important discovery and certainly something that is worthy of discussion. Instead, Leckey's comment sparks discussion of what he wanted to talk about about, site rules and other stuff unrelated to Chip's post. A classic hijack.

by Frederick Clarkson on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 02:03:49 PM EST
Parent

It is absolutely historically true that the church chose some of the dates for its religious observances to coincide with those of other faith traditions "in the neighborhood."  Christmas gets pegged on December 25th - Saturnalia - even though Jesus' birth was likely a spring event.  Etc., etc.

But how do you interpret that decision?  Those who want to slander the church and by extension Christianity (not the same thing in many cases) ascribe nefarious purposes to the church related to oppressing native peoples, stealing their religious practices as part of a colonizing effort of an evil church/state alliance.  Arguably, some of that is present here.

One of my professors in seminary said a very wise thing that I think is also grounded in a good reading of the development of early Christianity.  The Jesus movement started out as a set of pious practices within Judaism.  Aside from some metaphysical claims native to Judaism, the real point of the Jesus movement was a path, a way of life, meant to lead its practitioners into a closer relationship with God.  Early Christianity was a "piety looking for a metaphysic."  But metaphysical claims were only a very small part of what the early church was about.

Given this, the truth is that it doesn't matter when we celebrate important milestones in the church.  So in deciding when to celebrate Jesus' birth - since we don't have a birth certificate - when does it make sense to do so?  And what are other people doing at this time of year that might help us make the point we want to make?

Unless you come to that question with an anti-Christian bias to begin with, it might seem perfectly reasonable for the church to make a decision (albeit a decision that "evolved" as opposed to one that looked more like legislation) that would help to teach the lesson we want to teach in remembering the birth of Jesus.  And what better time to celebrate the "light" that shines in the darkness but couldn't be overcome near the day when nights are at their longest?

In that, the decision to peg Christmas near the Winter Solstice coincides with the decision to make the Solstice a celebration of light among pagan traditions.  Same motivations, its just the church's way of saying "darkness isn't the last word."  

Since the actual date of the birth of Jesus is not the point, who cares what date we choose, so lets choose a date that makes the point?  And if it looks familiar to our neighbors and makes it easier for us to explain our way of life to them in the process, all the better.

Of course, that's my interpretation of historic events but I am coming at this with a pro-Christianity bias.  The truth is undoubtedly somewhere midway between leckey's slander and my defense.  But leckey's viewpoint is fairly commonly held and stands as a kind of knee jerk default among those who see the church - and therefore Christianity - as a problem.  To leave it unchallenged with a different interpretation of historic events is to leave us with a two-dimensional parody of what should be a muddy and complex understanding of Christian tradition.
Jesus knew how to throw a party. We'll try to hold up our end of the bargain.
by jedwards on Thu Nov 22, 2007 at 12:10:59 PM EST
Parent