I recently received a comment on a blog entry I did last year at Christmas called Santa vs. Jesus. Read the entry here and Christopher's thoughts at the very bottom of the comments. For a direct link to the comment, click here. What response would you give to Christopher?
As Christians, we need to be able to defend our faith to people like Christopher. That is something that my generation, especially, was never taught to do. It leads me to be even more determined in my work to give our kids the tools they need to stand up to those in the world that oppose and even mock our saving faith in Jesus Christ.
How would you respond to Christopher's comments? How are you talking to your kids about this kind of thinking?
I'd love a flurry of comments in defense of our Christian faith . . . Nicole, Kent, Scott, Ty, Chelle? Any thoughts?
9 comments:
My heart is heavy for this man who apparently can't find faith in anything. To see more of what he said go to his blog: http://borderwars.blogspot.com/2007/12/hes-not-reason-for-season.html
Apparently his thoughts on Christmas haven't changed over the past year. Perhaps we should all comment away on his post and pray diligently over the next year.
You've given us a lot to think about Sonny!
Christopher...I can relate. I had a horrid childhood..Why would such a loving God subject me to it?? I spent many years being angry at this supposed God.
I am wondering if you have children? All I can tell you is that after the birth of my first child, I got to thinking...If this whole Bible and God and Jesus thing are real, if heaven and hell are realities, then I'm gonna bet on Jesus. I couldnt imagine being apart from my child for eternity...So, after study and prayer, the scales were pulled off my eyes. God became real to me, but it wasnt something that magically happened...It took time. A relationship had to build and I grew to love Him.
My heart aches for you. Check out carm.org......It is very informative as far as answering any deep questions you may have.
Nicole
I hope I was invited; I commented anyway even though for some reason I could not log in:-)
Thanks for sharing this with us Sonny. I am not sure I would have noticed a comment from a year ago's blog entry!
I think I would like to comment on last years blog in regards to you being so against telling your kids about Santa. I think you are way too uptight and this turns non christians off. I believed in Santa (and the tooth fairy) and this did not damage my belief in Christ. The same, I think for millions of other Christians. Your child is just missing out on an exciting part of American society and probably goes around ruining it for other kids who do believe. It just comes off as a way too holier than thou attitude that turns off Christians and non Christians alike.
Some thoughts on this, since it's Christmas break and I now have the time to think:
It isn't hard to make the case that Santa is less real than the Son of God. He embodies American cultural attitudes about consumerism. During the Industrial Revolution, Americans gave him a factory at the North Pole, complete with elves to work and a complex distribution system of reindeer (who later acquired names) and a sleigh. As Americans got richer, Santa got fatter. When slavery was no longer in vogue, Santa's black slave disappeared, too. He has changed and will continue to change as cultural attitudes about consumption change. He is the jolly fellow who fills the voids of our hearts with stuff, not each other, and certainly not the comfort and joy that embodies the message of the original glad tidings. Christmas is the holiest day in the religion of consumerism - the religion that gives hope and meaning when we place our identity in brands and orient our meaning around trends. So Santa, I believe, is very much real: every year he inevitably appears despite our claims for his nonexistence, and every year we worship at his feet (on his lap) and follow his commands: "Blessed are those who buy their way into happiness."
Christopher doesn't think the existence and continual presence of Jesus is any less contrived than the existence and continued presence of Santa. Milk and cookies, he says, are more tangible expressions of Santa's existence than any continual manifestation of Christ's presence. He's wrong, but it doesn't matter. Bolstering the claim that God exists because the sacraments are tangible expressions of God's existence is no more convincing than the claim that milk and cookies justify a belief in Santa. They're both horrible arguments, and both illustrate the difficult task of using evidence to bolster a truth claim (Christians would be wise to be more humble about this).
From his comment on your blog and from the posts on this topic on his, he seems to assume that because the church has changed a pagan holiday into one that suits its own interests, one of its central doctrines is invalided. I don't buy this, for two reasons. First, this is horrible logic. He seems to say that
If A changes B into C (the church changes pagan solstice festivals into a liturgical celebration of the incarnation)
and
B refutes A (pagan spirituality is incompatible with Christianity)
then
C refutes A (the new celebration refutes the incarnation, the church's truth claims are wrong, and God is not real)
Or, put a different way:
If the homeowner needs an extra bathroom and remodels a laundry room into one
and
the central purposes of laundry rooms are incompatible with the central purposes of bathrooms (e.g. you can't wash clothes in the toilet)
then
homeowners do not exist.
That's absurd and irrational.
The second reason I don't agree with Christopher is because he has misunderstood the history of one of the church's central tasks of discerning how best to interact with culture (engage? embrace? resist?). It's easy to define culture with guitars, drums, and screens (as Christopher does on his blog and as the rest of us often do), and the church has variously condemned or endorsed - sometimes unwisely - these and other products of culture. Other important cultural influences have been the printing press and the wristwatch, and the church has changed as it has come to accept these innovations. So the fact that the Church co-opted a pagan holiday 1700 years ago and transformed it into a significant liturgical celebration shouldn't give us reason to doubt the veracity of the thing it celebrates - the incarnation. This would be akin to doubting the existence of the wristwatch simply because it has altered the way the church conceptualizes time with regard to worship, preaching, etc.
On the other hand, I tend to the think that the church could do better to resist cultural conceptions of Christmas. Jesus is the reason for the season (or the rizzle for the sizzle), but churches of consumers always behave like consumers first and Christians second. Christmas in the church now emphasizes sentimentality over the incarnation; receiving over giving; family gatherings over God's revelation in the person and work of Christ. We have domesticated Christmas to the point that babies are lying in mangers not crying - according to the second verse of "Away In a Manger" - and the Son of God looks more like something you'd find in a package on the shelves of Meijer. Christopher says that God is not real, and I agree with him to the extent that the God we parade around every Christmas isn't real. The God of Christmas is a sentimental construction that makes us comfortable with the other deity of the holiday - Santa Claus - and Santa's commands and expectations of us.
It makes no sense that churches who bemoan the "War Against Christmas" and rail against folks like Christopher don't discern the implications of the incarnation - which is what we're really celebrating at Christmas and the implications of which might be more dire than we think. For example, what does the incarnation mean for environmental concerns? the disaster in Iraq? the presidential primaries? the food we eat? These questions, of course, are off limits in church because many churches, both on the right and left, hold tacit answers to them. So it's no wonder - and partly our fault - that folks like Christopher react the way they do and believe the things about God they believe. A little scrutiny - regardless of the source (within the church or from outside, from voices like Christopher's) - might not be a bad thing.
-Kent
I believed in Santa (and the Tooth Fairy) and I couldnt believe my parents had lied to me and fabricated soooo much, when the truth came out. Did it scar for me for life? No. But as a Christian, I see no point in lying to the kids...they will not miss out on what they dont know and I dont want them to think Santa is why we celebrate...We dont need one more thing throwing us off track of why we celebrate.
As far as using the "American Society" argument...try something else. The Bible states, we are not of this world. We are not to conform. We are like aliens.
American society loves sex, drugs, worship of self and money. I don't find this exciting and I DO hope my kids "miss out on it". We are not suppose to conform to wordliness...but we shouldnt be ignorant of it either.
Nicole
To respond to anonymous #2, I apologize if my entry came off as holier than thou . . . that certainly wasn't my intent.
I do not, however, apologize for my opinion (and that is all it is, is an opinion) that I think it's important for my family to focus on what is real, not what is contrived.
The incarnation of Christ is THE most incredible and under-acknowledged fact of history. God gave His most precious gift of all when He gave us His Son, Jesus. THAT'S what I want my own focus to be, that's what I want my children's focus to be - on THE ONE who came to free me from the chains of sin.
I have no problem at all with my kids seeing Santa at the mall, or watching Rudolf the Red-Nosed Reindeer at Christmas. I do want my kids to enjoy the fun, light-heartedness of the season. I love singing the Christmas songs, such as Santa Claus is coming to Town etc. - but I don't want those things to overshadow THE most important part of the CHRISTmas celebration, I don't want them thinking that Santa and getting are what the celebration is about, that's all. No more, no less.
My kids look at Santa the same way they look at Elmo or Dora . . . they enjoy the story . . . but they don't believe they're real, and they certainly aren't out there dis-proving other kids' belief in them . . . Santa is what he is . . .
I agree with Kent, it is good to have a Christopher pop in his views and opinions even if they seem harsh in our like-minded community.
Chris' one comment albeit lengthy and a year later has made many of us think about ourselves and our ways during the Holidays.
I fight an almost daily battle with the pressure of consumerism. Let's not pretend it is at it's worst only at Christmas time.
Santa is the scapegoat. He and all his hoopla are blamed for ruining the reason for the season (rizzle for the sizzle---love it, Kent!) But we skew the emphasis just fine on our own whether or not we allow our kiddos to believe in Santa Claus really doesn't have much to do with it.
Dare I say that gift giving and family gatherings can be good things? Frankly, I don't care much about the history and pagan derivation of Santa.
Spending my time getting all balled up about the evils of Santa and the departure of Christmas as a celebration of Christ's birth wastes as much time and energy for me as endlessly searching for that "perfect Christmas gift"
As a Christian I need to examine my heart. Where is my money, time and energy, going during EVERY season??
Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night.
To add a bit more to this discussion, here's a timely comment in response to an article that appeared in the LA Times last year:
“Pulpits all over Christendom will again be decrying the secularization of Christmas. I suppose I can’t blame them. Christian preachers are bound to fantasize about the Church being doctrinally and liturgically pure and all the world loving it for it. But I am enough a historian and a realist to know that if it wasn’t for the secularization of Christmas we’d have a lot fewer people here tonight [at our Christmas Eve service]. If the Church has given the world a holiday for nostalgia and guilt-abating good works, even if the coming of Jesus Christ is missed, the world has given us a once-a-year opportunity to proclaim that coming. If the option to the secularization of Christmas is that Christmas be as popular and well-attended as Ascension, I’d say hurray for secularization, and only wish that I could come up with a way to get Madison Avenue to promote other Holy Days.
Other Holy Days, of course, don’t so easily give themselves over to nostalgia. It is hard to be cute about Good Friday.”
-Kent
Post a Comment