Stand Back! He’s Going To War On Xmas!🎄

Opinion | Yes, it’s time for a ceasefire. In the War on Christmas.

— New York Times Pitchbot (@DougJBalloon) December 24, 2023

Former Dukes of Hazzard actor John Schneider has an anti “cancel culture”Christmas movie out produced by Sean Hannity called ‘Jingle Smells.’ He says he was the first victim of it in Hollywood and in his movie a garbage man gives out toys of a canceled Superhero. pic.twitter.com/Tk5n9Dgqd5

— Ron Filipkowski (@RonFilipkowski) December 10, 2023

Yeah, I don’t care about John Schneider, I’m more interested in that chyron. Why are a very former TV star and a TV announcer telling us the country needs more “love and faith” this season?

Getting that message from a cable(?)/internet “news” station and an actor few of us remember is somehow just so…American. I mean, if a real church leader (not someone regularly on TeeVee) were to say it, would anyone notice?

I don’t think anybody really cares this time. I don’t even know what network this was on. It’s obviously a sad attempt to get some MAGA “War on Christmas” cred. The battle for Christmas in America literally goes back to the Puritans. Like an underground coal fire it’s simmered and smoked beneath American history ever since. You can’t always feel the heat, but it wants to break out to the surface almost every year. 

I'll see if I can do this with selected quotes, because my perspectives/opinions/approaches have changed over the years; which only underlines my point that NO ONE knows where most of our Christmas traditions came from, or why December 25th was picked in Rome as the day to celebrate (and to this good day, most of the "knowledge" that Christmas is "tied to pagan celebrations" comes not from history, but from the Puritans.  Truly.)  So here we go.

Mentions of Christmas celebrations don't begin to appear in the literature until about the 12th century.  There were infancy narratives, to be sure, in the 1st (Luke, Matthew) and 2nd centuries (Infancy Gospel of James, Infancy Gospel of Thomas), but nothing else notable shows up until the high Middle Ages.  This is not to say a Christ Mass was not observed for the birth of Christ.  But that didn't start up until the 4th century. (I've been pretty damned exhaustive ("and exhausting!") about this here, if you care to go deeper.) I said I would quote myself:  let me do that.

This book does come down on the side of "Sol Invictus" (actually Natali Invictus) as the date for the Christ mass celebration because it was an important Roman holiday; it says so in passing (the anthology is not a work of scholarship).  To this I would say "Yes, but...." and note two things:  one, the Christ Mass was celebrated in Rome sometime before 354 C.E., which places it after the death of Constantine (and so Rome was officially Christian by then), and: "But even should a deliberate and legitimate "baptism" of a pagan feast be seen here no more than the transference of the date need be supposed."  Such things were quite common throughout Christian history; it wasn't until the Puritans that anyone complained so strongly about it, and their arguments really weren't all that sound.  Here, again, the right view of history is needed.

The church in Rome got along fine without the observance of the birth of Christ in a special mass for several centuries.  The first observance of such a mass was in Alexandria (200 C.E.), which is logical because the Egyptians observed the birthdays of their Pharaohs, who were regarded as gods.  Date of birth would be of obvious significance, and it's no surprise the church in Egypt would decide a special celebration of the Birth of the Christ was in order.  But already we're off track if we think that "special celebration" involved anything like the celebration we have today.  This was a celebration by the church, and that meant a special Mass.  Easter was still the dominant day on the Church calendar (as it remains in the Eastern church); the mass for the Nativity was just an addition to the liturgical calendar.

And it remained such for centuries.  It is only in the medieval church that we begin to get celebrations like the Feast of Fools in December, and more elaborate celebrations among the kings as the period moves on.

Or, to put it a little more sharply, from what I said two years earlier:

First, let's note there's a disagreement over whether Christmas was set atop "Sol Invictii" (per a comment at Salon) or the Saturnalia.  The two become interchangeable in these arguments, which is tedious but typical.  So:

Christmas was not among the earliest festivals of the Church. Irenaeus and Tertullian omit it from their lists of feasts; Origen, glancing perhaps at the discreditable imperial Natalitia, asserts (in Lev. Hom. viii in Migne, P.G., XII, 495) that in the Scriptures sinners alone, not saints, celebrate their birthday; Arnobius (VII, 32 in P.L., V, 1264) can still ridicule the "birthdays" of the gods.

The first evidence of the feast is from Egypt. About A.D. 200, Clement of Alexandria (Stromata I.21) says that certain Egyptian theologians "over curiously" assign, not the year alone, but the day of Christ's birth, placing it on 25 Pachon (20 May) in the twenty-eighth year of Augustus. [Ideler (Chron., II, 397, n.) thought they did this believing that the ninth month, in which Christ was born, was the ninth of their own calendar.] 

The first observance was in Egypt, not Rome.  I don't know that anyone thinks of Egypt as a hotbed of observance of Roman customs, especially since the Romans didn't do that much to export their religious customs to the hinterlands of the Empire.  Beyond declaring Caesar the "Son of God," they pretty much left local religious practices alone.  The discussion of the feast at New Advent goes on to conclude (the history is quite complex) that the feast (not the reference to the day of birth) reached Egypt between 427 and 433.  Christianity became the official religion of the Empire in 395.  About the time the Roman Empire was coming apart, in other words.  And this may or may not be wholly accurate, but it is useful in placing Alexandria in historical context:

In the late 4th century, persecution of pagans by newly Christian Romans had reached new levels of intensity. Temples and statues were destroyed throughout the Roman empire: pagan rituals became forbidden under punishment of death, and libraries were closed. In 391, Emperor Theodosius I ordered the destruction of all pagan temples, and the Patriarch Theophilus complied with his request. One theory has it that the great Library of Alexandria and the Serapeum were destroyed about this time.

Not sure just how popular a Christian holiday placed atop a pagan one would have been, even some 40 years after such events.

Nor, to add to what I said once upon a time, not only would the feast rest uncomfortably on a pagan festival, it would call into question all that effort to eradicate remnants of paganism. Establishing a new feast on an old one? Make the new feast pretty suspect, wouldn’t it?

What I’m getting at here is that the Church had few reasons to “take over” in-Christian observances, and many reasons not to. That doesn’t mean that the laity didn’t keep those things, but that’s precisely the point of diversion. Most if what are considered Christmas traditions: Santa Claus and Yule logs ( the timber and the dessert cake); holly and ivy (according to the carol they represent aspects of the Christmas story, but that’s bending them to connect to the season. I don’t know of any church doctrine that makes that connection); even carols themselves (they aren’t generally hymns). All of these are rich customs and traditions; but they aren’t of the church.

The Puritans worked hard to distinguish themselves from Rome (a recipe for becoming your enemy; or for focusing only on what you say you aren’t). They wanted to “purify” the church, so they argued anything “Roman” was actually pagan, and therefore not Christian. That included all the traditions surrounding Christmas, many of which we have lost.  I’ll come back to that. We’ve abandoned the Puritanism but kept the basis for the criticism, without knowing where it came from or what it’s based on (here’s a hint: it ain’t scholarship!). Which brings us, with a hop, skip and a bump (why dawdle?), to Christmas today in America:

First, Christmas as we know it in America didn't really get started until the 1820's. It wasn't widely celebrated until the 1860's, and didn't become an official national holiday until 1870. So the "observance" of it (whatever that means) is not all that old. (For a bit of perspective, A Christmas Carol was published in 1843, and many scholars today attribute the "revival" of Christmas celebrations in England to Dickens). And from almost the moment the holiday was observed as a holiday, it was connected to commerce. So the connection between Christmas and shopping, in America, is as old as Christmas in America itself. 

You will look at that and realize we’ve only been doing Xmas officially for 150 years or so; it you’ll think that’s a long time to have been doing it. But Dickens published his Christmas Carol in 1843, and it was a generation later before we made it an official holiday. Clement Moore published his Christmas poem 30 years before Dickens’ Carol, but still it was late in the century (and after the Civil War) before we made it a holiday.

I would just point out that Dickens (just like Moore) certainly tied the observance of Christmas in Merrye Olde England to commerce its own self just as tightly as Marley was bound with the chains of his neglect of common humanity.  There is precious little in Dickens’ ghost story that doesn’t focus on, or strongly include, mercantilism. Christmas in medieval Europe was based on the feudalism of medieval Europe. It can’t really be a surprise that the Christmas of the 19th century we all get nostalgic for is based on the commercialism we annually lament and celebrate.

Some of our favorite Christmas songs are tied to medieval chant and monastic worship ("O Come, O Come Emmanuel") but most of our songs are from the late 18th and 19th centuries (a rare few are older, or the tunes are).  What we consider "traditional" is sometimes no older than our own childhoods.  I also point this out because I don't think there was much nostalgia for the Roman Saturnalia in America in the early 19th century (the country itself was only a few decades old, and while the Republic was modeled on Rome, little else about American life was Roman.).  Yes, there was "soaling" in England for centuries, but that was rooted in the harsh winter everyone was about to endure, and the fact all the land and food from it belonged to the landlord (a knight, a baron, a duke; feudalism, in other words) and the peasants needed a share if they were to be alive to plant again in the spring.  Gift giving was mostly among peers, by which I mean the peerage.  Peasants, if they were lucky, could have something resembling a feast.  Trees, packages, Christmas caroling?  All products of 19th century England because Victoria's husband was German.  Mostly.  Coleridge is the other side of that "mostly."  Folk customs and traditions were of particular interest to Coleridge and Wordsworth, who literally taught the rest of us to be interested (the study of folklore springs from this, too).  Coleridge wrote about a Christmas in Germany and the delight of the children in the Christmas tree.  It could be said he prepared the way for Albert to make it an acceptable custom from the top down, although I can't say accurately which came first:  Albert's Christmas tree in England, or the publication of Coleridge's anecdote.

Now, about the time of year Jesus was born: we don't know.  Literally.  We have absolutely no clue.

This one is a little like the one from my early days:  the "truth" about the 'Christmas star.'  I went to a planetarium in December as a child where they tried earnestly to establish what the star in Matthew was, or could have been.  Was, mostly.  Science wanted its imprimatur, or believers wanted their beliefs substantiated with material fact.  Either way, it was a fool's game.  There was no Xmas Star in first century Palestine.  It's a metaphor.

The entire infancy narrative of Mattew, as well, as Luke, is purely metaphorical.

Basically Matthew and Luke were telling stories relevant to their gospel accounts, and the stories they told of the birth of Jesus of Nazareth are based on the needs of their stories.  So Matthew ties Jesus to the proclamations of the prophets (most notably Isaiah) that the nations would come to the "light" that would be Israel after the restoration from the Babylonian Exile when Israel followed God's way happily and willfully.  Matthew translates that into a prediction of Jesus as Messiah.  Clearly he's aiming at a Hebrew (soon to be Jewish) audience that knew Isaiah & Co.  So the light of a star brings three foreigners (Gentiles) to worship the new king (a new star indicates a new king, at least in non-Hebraic cultures.  Matthew would have known this, living in a non-Hebraic community under Roman rule.).  When they can't find him, the star helps out by moving to where Mary and Joseph are (Jesus, spoiler alert, is 2 years old by now.  This isn't the stable they come to.)  Then Mary and Joseph flee to Egypt (recapitulating the history of Israel in 3 people), and leave Egypt later, guided by an angel (not Moses this time) and relocate in Nazareth so Jesus can be the Nazarene he's already known to have been (Matthew writes after the crucifixion and resurrection. He writes to an audience who knows “Jesus of Nazareth.”).  Relocate, because they started in Bethlehem, the city of David identified by Micah.  This, too, is metaphorical (take my word for it, I'm tired ot explaining every detail.  I still have Luke upcoming.)

Matthew gives us no idea when Jesus was born.  Luke comes closer, because we are told shepherds were in the fields watching their flocks.  This leads us to presume it was not winter.  But I don't know what winter is like in Israel (then Palestine).  I know they don't get a blanket of snow, and I assume grass goes fallow.  But there has to be something to feed the sheep, and there wasn't a thriving hay industry at the time.  So I'm not sure we can assume the shepherds penned up the sheep for the winter.  I'm pretty sure they don't in England, where it definitely gets much colder and is snowier.  Let's not assume we know the seasons in 1st century Palestine, or are experts in sheep herding in the 1st century, either.  But let's also not assume, like Matthew's story of the star, that Luke is recording history.  As I said, we just don't know when on the calendar Luke's story is supposed to take place.

Not that it matters.  Luke tells us Jesus is born during a census.  That should date things, right?  Except there's no record of such a census.  Again:  think metaphor.  Luke needs to get the Holy Family to Bethlehem for the birth.  Matthew has them there, but Jesus was known to be from Nazareth; so Matthew puts him there by way of Egypt.  Metaphor.  Luke moves them there for the birth by way of imperial decree, the very imperial power which will crucify Jesus as an adult.  Metaphor.  Matthew presages the death, too:  two of the three gifts brought by the Magi are for embalming.  Metaphor.

Luke has shepherds visit the family on the night of the birth, guided there by angels (messengers, literally agents, of God).  Shepherds are low class, basically the bikers of 1st century Palestine; the opposite end of the social spectrum from Magi.  Metaphor.  Luke's gospel will emphasize social justice (God, Mary sings, will bring the powerful down off their thrones, and raise up the lowly).  Jesus is born in a feeding trough, the usual first bed of children of the poorest class (like Joseph).  Metaphor.  This all connects with Luke's emphasis on the first being last, and the last first; with his Beatitudes where the poor are congratulated and the rich are literally damned.

But, you might say, isn't all this metaphor bad?  Shouldn't we have an accurate historical account we can all rely on?  Well, first, how do you think we all live:  by absolute history, or by metaphor?  What is the Christmas celebration except a stew of metaphors?  And, what are metaphors except the way we tell stories?  Especially the most important stories.

Is that an offensive version of a fictional scene (as I said, Matthew's Magi never met Luke's shepherds in a stall, while the star beamed down overall)?  Nativity scenes themselves are metaphors, which is why I have two from Peruvian culture (nobody looks Anglo, or Middle Eastern, in either); it's why "tradition" tells us there were 3 "wise men" (Matthew only says there were three gifts), and one was white (of course), one was African, and one was Asian (nationalities have changed over the centuries, depending.). Are cats offensive?  Or metaphorical?  

How about this one?

These are cartoon characters of children; and the Christchild is being admired by a bird. I’ve seen one where Woodstock is the Christchild.  Offensive?  Or cute?  Or just a metaphor meant to make the story of the gospels a little more "real" to us?  

How about this one?

Look carefully, if you have to. That’s far closer to historically accurate than any nativity you’ve probably ever seen. Here,  if you prefer, something more contemporary, and so more historically accurate because it is now:

That is the nativity this year from the Lutheran Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem. When you are in beleaguered circumstances it’s easier to do this kind of thing. Comfortable churches don’t generally like this kind of discomfort. You can read a bit more about it here:

From Peterr:

The Christmas Story is a Very Political Storyhttps://t.co/G2f7TU6IRu

— emptywheel (@emptywheel) December 25, 2023

There’s also an excellent analysis there of why the Nativity stories if Matthew and Luke are necessarily political, which my legal training tells me to incorporate herein by reference, adding, as the kids would say: “No notes.”

Is that nativity in the midst of rubble a good metaphor? I think it is, if only because it reminds us our Christmas is just like the first: happening in a world torn by our determination to tear it; and in our determination to blame somebody else for what we’re doing. Ask not for whom the bell toll; it tolls for thee. And like as not, your hands are on the bell pull.

How do all of these stand up to my Peruvian nativity; or my wooden one, with abstract figures; or the wooden one with painted figures; or the very full one in fired ceramic, with multiple shepherds, sheep, cows, and camels, as well as two angels and three wise men. It’s practically a village; some of the figures in such action poses you expect them to move.

I don’t have the one Garrison Keillor describes, with Santa, Tiny Tim and Scrooge on the lawn around the baby Jesus, and six wise men, not three (sure, why not?), as well as the Grinch, Frosty, and Rudolph. Since my time in southern Illinois, a state (the same was true in Chicago, where we lived for a year), truly caught in a time warp, that I came to call “The Lighted Plastic Baby Jesus Capitol of the World.” Nothing brought back my late ‘50’s-early’60’s childhood like a plastic Jesus with a 100 watt bulb up his bum. I still plan to find one someday, and put at least the Holy Family in electrified glory shining through the December nights on my front lawn. That’ll really bring Xmas close to a person. Or at least tick off another entry on my bucket list. Maybe if I can find the storage space for them… 🤔 

In the end, that’s all Luke and Matthew were trying to do: make the story seem more real, bring it closer to us in our lives. But that was 2000+ years ago, and things change.  So as we retell the story, we make it a little more meaningful to us.  We slightly shift the metaphors, because we aren't really talking about a stable or a star or "wise men" or even shepherds.  We're talking about something traditional (those nativity scenes in the pictures are actually pretty secular); or we're talking about something ineffable. It’s the ineffable that’s the point. By the way, the traditional is often ineffable, too.

And that's okay.  May it be unto you, according to your faith.