Saturday, December 06, 2025

Music for Advent: St. Nicholas, by Benjamin Britten

Posted by at No comments:

First Saturday of Advent 2025: St. Nicholas' Day



SAINT Nicholas. Day of death: (according to the martyrology) December 6, about 360. Grave: originally at Myra; since 1087 at Sari in Italy. Life (highly legendary): Nicholas was born at Patara in Asia Minor to parents who, having long been childless, had petitioned God with many prayers. Already as a youth Nicholas became noted for his zeal in helping the unfortunate and oppressed. In his native city there lived a poor nobleman who had three marriageable daughters; he could not obtain a suitor for them because he could offer no dowry. The contemptible idea struck him to sacrifice the innocence of his daughters to gain the needed money. When Nicholas became aware of this, he went by night and threw a bag containing as much gold as was needed for a dowry through the window. This he repeated the second and third nights. During a sea voyage he calmed the storm by his prayer; he is therefore venerated as patron of sailors. On a certain occasion he was imprisoned for the faith. In a wonderful way he later became bishop of Myra; his presence is noted at the Council of Nicaea. He died a quiet death in his episcopal city, uttering the words: "Into your hands I commend my spirit."

Nicholas is highly venerated in the East as a miracle worker, as "preacher of the word of God, spokesman of the Father."

--Pius Parsch

Gift giving and Christmas are tightly connected.  In Italy it is La Befana, an old woman, who brings gifts to children.  It's based on a legend that the Magi stopped at her house on the way to Bethlehem, and she treated them hospitably.  There are all kinds of legends around Christmas, including those involving St. Nicholas “(highly legendary)".

I have a representation of La Befana dropping gifts into a chimney, a la Santa Claus/St. Nick.  I understand that in the early days of America houses had one chimney and centrally located fireplaces in each room connected to the one chimney, so the chimney was quite large.  The idea of Santa, from Moore's poem, slipping down the chimney, was not such an outlandish one.  Though, by Moore's time, chimneys were already relocated to the edges of the house, and one house might support several chimneys.  Building technology had changed, IOW.  So most likely Moore didn't invent the idea of Santa and the chimney as an entry point, but it required more and more reliance on fantasy as chimneys turned to stove pipes, and then disappeared altogether.  The Lovely Wife says she knew as a child Santa didn't come down the chimney because they didn't have one; that he came through the front door, and her mother let him in.  I can't remember being bothered at all with how Santa got in the house; I was too busy playing with what he'd brought on Xmas morning.

Giving is a large part of our Xmas celebration; but giving to whom?

"What keeps you from giving now? Isn't the poor person there? Aren't your own warehouses full? Isn't the reward promised? The command is clear: the hungry person is dying now, the naked person is freezing now, the person in debt is beaten now-and you want to wait until tomorrow? "I'm not doing any harm," you say. "I just want to keep what I own, that's all." You own! You are like someone who sits down in a theater and keeps everyone else away, saying that what is there for everyone's use is your own. . . . If everyone took only what they needed and gave the rest to those in need, there would be no such thing as rich and poor. After all, didn't you come into life naked, and won't you return naked to the earth?

"The bread in your cupboard belongs to the hungry person; the coat hanging unused in your closet belongs to the person who needs it; the shoes rotting in your closet belong to the person with no shoes; the money which you put in the bank belongs to the poor. You do wrong to everyone you could help, but fail to help."
Basil
4th Century

"The large rooms of which you are so proud are in fact your shame. They are big enough to hold crowds--and also big enough to shut out the voices of the poor....There is your sister or brother, naked, crying! And you stand confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering."
Ambrose
4th Century

What was that about Advent being the time for rousing, for waking up to the truth of ourselves?  "The primary condition for a fruitful and rewarding Advent is renunciation, surrender."  Every year I try to imagine any church leader, any pastor, any TV evangelist or writer of popular Christian books, echoing the words of Basil and Ambrose from 1700 years ago.

I must admit I don't have that much imagination, except to imagine that, unlike John the Baptist, they wouldn't draw that many people to the wilderness to listen to them.

If you go back to John the Baptist, you get the same message Ambrose and Basil are offering here.  But not back to Matthew's story; this time, go to Luke's;

So [John] would say to the crowds that came to be baptized by him, "You spawn of Satan! Who warned you to flee from the impending doom? Well then, start producing fruits suitable for a change of heart, and don't even start saying to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' Let me tell you, God can raise up children for Abraham right out of these rocks.  Even now the axe is almost at the roote of the trees.  Every tree not producing choice fruit gets cut down and tossed into the fire."

The crowds would ask him, "So what should we do?"

And he would answer them, "Whoever has two shirts should share with someone who has non; whoever has food should do the same." 

--Luke 3:7-11 (SV)

A little extension of Matthew's version there, but salient in light of what Jesus said about Elijah, which his disciples understood to mean John the Baptist.  Elijah is an interesting choice, because Elijah was (is) such an important prophet it was expected he would return before the Lord comes, before, as Malachi puts it, that "great and terrible day."  Jesus compares John to Elijah.  It's hard, in other words, to be a greater prophet than Elijah; but John is the Elijah who has come as herald.  We focus on the "herald" part of that; we should focus on the "great prophet" part of that.  As Malachi puts it, Elijah is above Moses, above all the prophets we think "great" because we remember them in Advent, or take their words out of context to predict the end of the world.  We should pay more attention to Elijah.

We should pay more attention to John, too.  To give your extra shirt to a shirtless man; to share your food because you have this day your daily bread, is not a suggestion.  As Ambrose says, as Basil says, the commandment is clear.  And the commandment comes from John: standing by that river, wearing animal hides and shouting at people who come to listen despite his anger.  I know lots of preachers who love to spew fire and brimstone and imagine they are John, painting the horrors of sinners in the hands of an angry God.  But John is more radical than that, goes further than they would.  He offers salvation, and it isn't in confession or belief or even claiming repentance.  It is in producing fruits suitable for a change of heart.  It is in giving away what you have an excess of; and "excess" means more than you need for today.

The commandment is clear.  The voice is that of Elijah.  The voice is that of God.  Baptism is the least of it.  John is more than a herald.

Advent can be a real kick in the head.
Posted by at No comments:

Friday, December 05, 2025

The Emperor Is Not Only Naked

He’s a toddler with a shotgun. And the world knows it, even if we can’t say it. I wonder if he’ll sleep with it? It’s a fair question. If Trump is not repudiated by the Congress (the only body that can do it), what keeps the next President from doing what he did? Especially when a Republican returns to the White House? What’s the check then? Not getting re-elected? That’s hardly enough, is it?

This isn’t about the immunity decision. This is Congress’s burden. For the first time in history, they need to remove a President from office, ban his ever returning (don’t give the Supremes the chance to rewrite the 22nd Amendment. I’m not sure they won’t rewrite the first clause of the 14th.), and thereby make clear to Vance he can be removed, too. This president must be shamed and his place historically marred so that the lesson is, actions such as his are not tolerated by the government formed under this Constitution.

Or we might as well pack it in, and recognize we couldn’t keep the Republic after all.
Because Mockler is right. Already, telling the truth is indistinguishable from mockery:
Posted by at 1 comment:

Is This Guy A CEO Because He Always Behaves This Way?

Or does he behave this way because he’s on drugs?

I ask because I have a family member (wife of a cousin) who still thinks I was on drugs one night over 50 years ago, largely because I inadvertently gave her good reason to think so. We were all in high school, I was visiting my cousin, and I got a wild streak (as is my very occasional wont), and jumped out of the car (it was stopped) in a park. And ran off. My cousin, playing along, drove off. He later told me his girlfriend (now wife) screamed at him that I was “high as a kite” and they had to go back and get me. If I was on anything, it was drive-in movie candy.*

But, despite that aberration that was (is) perfectly in keeping with my personality, I’m not, and never have been, CEO material. So I’m seriously wondering, what’s up with this guy? And granted this is taken out of context, but: what the hell is he talking about?

If you saw this guy on the street corner, you’d cross the street; mid-block, if necessary.


*To this day, every time I see her, she mentions the incident. I made quite an impression in my youth. 
Posted by at 2 comments:

“WE’RE THE SUPREME COURT, BITCHES!”

Scathing dissent from Justice Kagan:

"[T]his Court reverses that judgment based on its perusal, over a holiday weekend, of a cold paper record. We are a higher court than the District Court, but we are not a better one when it comes to making such a fact-based decision. That is why we are supposed to use a clear-error standard of review—why we are supposed to uphold the District Court’s decision that race-based line-drawing occurred (even if we would have ruled differently) so long as it is plausible. Without so much as a word about that standard, this Court today announces that Texas may run next year's elections with a map the District Court found to have violated all our oft-repeated strictures about the use of race in districting. Today's order disrespects the work of a District Court that did everything one could ask to carry out its charge—that put aside every consideration except getting the issue before it right. And today's order disserves the millions of Texans whom the District Court found were assigned to their new districts based on their race. Because this Court's precedents and our Constitution demand better, I respectfully dissent."
There was nothing wrong with the district court’s opinion. The majority just didn’t like it.

This is what I mean when I say the appellate courts review the law, not the facts. Just as the majority says the legislature is entitled to deference, so, too, is the district court that heard the evidence in the case. But the conclusion of the district court after hearing the evidence being inconvenient to the majority on the Court, they simply set it aside, because “WE’RE THE SUPREME COURT, BITCHES!”

It’s time to remind the Court where Art. III falls in the Constitution, and how much authority the Constitution gives Congress over the Courts. As well as who holds the whip hand in amending the Constitution to say what it now needs to say.
Posted by at 2 comments:

Music for Krampusnacht

Posted by at No comments:

December 5 Krampusnacht



 
Speaking of “gloom of night…”

It’s finally a small pillow and an addition to the Xmas decor at Chez Adventus. And it’s still a little happier sentiment than this one:


Yes, Virginia, greeting cards like that were very popular in Victorian times.  Germans weren't quite as sloppily sentimental as the Dickensian English, it would seem.

Krampus, in central European popular legend, a half-goat, half-demon monster that punishes misbehaving children at Christmastime. He is the devilish companion of St. Nicholas. Krampus is believed to have originated in Germany, and his name derives from the German word Krampen, which means “claw.”

Krampus was thought to have been part of pagan rituals for the winter solstice. According to legend, he is the son of Hel, the Norse god of the underworld. With the spread of Christianity, Krampus became associated with Christmas—despite efforts by the Catholic church to ban him. The creature and St. Nicholas are said to arrive on the evening of December 5 (Krampusnacht; “Krampus Night”). While St. Nicholas rewards nice children by leaving presents, Krampus beats those who are naughty with branches and sticks. In some cases, he is said to eat them or take them to hell. On December 6, St. Nicholas Day, children awaken to find their gifts or nurse their injuries.

Festivities involving Krampus include the Krampuslauf (“Krampus run”). In this activity, which often involves alcohol, people dressed as the creature parade through streets, scaring spectators and sometimes chasing them. Beginning in the late 20th century, amid efforts to preserve cultural heritage, Krampus runs became increasingly popular in Austria and Germany. During this time Krampus began to be celebrated internationally, and the monster’s growing appeal was evidenced by numerous horror films. Some claimed that the expanding popularity of Krampus was a reaction to the commercialization of Christmas.

Britannica (an on-line source I find more trustworthy than most.)

That last line gives me reason enough to support the revival (or spread) of Krampus. And even, at 70, seek out a Krampuslauf.

Appropriately, Krampusnacht is the eve of St. Nicholas' Day.  (Like Hallowe’en is the eve of All Saints.) Not everything in December happens on Christmas Eve, after all.  La Befana is an old woman (or witch, in some tellings; two conditions that often appear alike) who brings gifts to children in Italy on Epiphany Eve (Epiphany being the original date/reason (?) for Xmas gift giving.  I wouldn't lean too hard on that latter, but it is interesting how many different days for recieving gifts existed in Christian Europe.)  In some representations, she drops gifts down the chimney, a la St. Nick.  Or the “real” St. Nicholas, who threw the gold through the window. 🪟 

(I have a lot of this stuff I haven’t framed.) 

I admire the idea of Krampus.  American stories about Santa Claus leaving coal in stockings (or switches) always struck me as lame because, of course that never happened!  But Krampus!  Now there's a punisher with some teeth!  Literally!  Santa may know who's been naughty or nice, but Krampus stands for accountability!

And we all like accountability.  At least when it applies to thee, and not to me!

And accountability is not to be downplayed in a spiritual—which is to say at least, practicing humility— preparation for Christmas.


BTW: six days in and we’re already talking about receiving gifts. 🎁  It wasn’t entirely Clement Moore and commercialization that taught us to think of December as all about receiving. 😈 What Krampus makes us receive is really not to be overlooked in Advent preparations, especially as Advent was once considered a “little Lent.” And all these “Eves,” all this anxious anticipation that runs through December.  December is the “Eve” month. What’s up with that?
Posted by at 1 comment:

First Friday of Advent 2025

 


Matthew 24:36-44 


The sudden coming of salvation 

24:36 "But about that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. 

24:37 For as the days of Noah were, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. 

24:38 For as in the days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day Noah entered the ark, 

24:39 and they knew nothing until the flood came and swept them all away, so, too, will be the coming of the Son of Man. 

24:40 Then two will be in the field; one will be taken, and one will be left. 

24:41 Two women will be grinding meal together; one will be taken, and one will be left. 

24:42 Keep awake, therefore, for you do not know on what day your Lord is coming. 

24:43 But understand this: if the owner of the house had known in what part of the night the thief was coming, he would have stayed awake and would not have let his house be broken into. 

24:44 Therefore you also must be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect.

This is apocalyptic. It isn’t meant to be literal. But discerning the meaning is…treacherous.

Literal readings of apocalyptic passages lead to strange and sometimes absurd theories of the Eschaton. Metaphorical interpretations lead to endless arguments. But the point of apocalyptic is not to explain; the point is to provoke, and prepare the way for the revelation.

Clear? Well, it shouldn’t be. That’s the point.

When apocalyptic is taken literally, all kinds of foolishness erupts. So don’t take this as some glimpse into the future, or some Nostradamus vague-enough-to-mean-anything shit. So forget the visuals, and focus on this:
But understand this: if the owner of the house had known in what part of the night the thief was coming, he would have stayed awake and would not have let his house be broken into.
The question you should be asking is: What the hell does that mean?

I don’t mean what he said; that’s clear enough. I mean, why does he say it? If you know when the Sin of Man is coming, you would stay awake and prevent him?

Yeah; you probably would.

That’s what he said. That what he meant. Look at the context. Nobody knows the day and the hour. That’s intentional. That means Jesus isn’t telling you. No hints, no clues, no signs to watch for. No prophecy, in other words, and no visions from the future. And it’s meant to be scary. Like in the time of the flood, when nobody knew what was coming, until it was too late. Like when half the people are taken, and half are not?

Taken? Literally? Taken where? This is one of the passages the idea of a rapture is drawn from. Taken literally, it means the chosen are saved, the righteous are spared, and the lost are “left behind.” Except this message is not a literal one; and Jesus doesn’t say where they are taken. Maybe the “left behind” are the “chosen.” Maybe they’re better off. Don’t presume you know.

No one knows. That’s the point.

You see, the presence of God is always frightening. When Moses stood in the doxa, the glory of God, on Sinai, the Israelites saw a thunderstorm on the mountain, a theophany of the presence of the Creator in the creation. Moses came down with his face glowing from the doxa, and the people said they would stay in their tents, thank you very much, because they didn’t leave Egypt for the wilderness and this!

When Elijah soaked the wood pile with water and stood back and God consumed it in a holocaust, to prove God was god, do you think the people whipped out marshmallows and kosher hot dogs? I’m guessing it’s more likely they peed at least a little. The presence of God is a fearsome thing.

So Jesus plays that tune: two will be about quotidian tasks, and one will be taken. As in the days of Noah; no one will know until it’s too late. If that doesn’t get your attention, you’re doing it wrong.

So what about the thief? The thief is the disruption that is not wanted. Silicon Valley edgelords bragged about being disruptive, until Elmo and DOGE ruined that for them. They were always pikers. The coming of the Son of Man is the real disruption.

So we domesticate it, reduce it to a baby and three guys bringing presents and angels singing to shepherds, and say that’s what Christmas is all about, Charlie Brown. Something suitable for children. But the apocalypse of the Incarnation is the ultimate disruption.

Matthew says those gifts included frankincense and myrrh, perfumes used to cover the smell of a decaying corpse in the desert air of 1st century Judea. Gifts for a baby. Gifts as narrative foreshadowing. We domesticate it. Matthew knew what he meant. Those visitors alert the powers that be, and the family flees to Egypt even as Herod kills every male child under the age of 2 in Bethlehem. Because he can. Because he’s scared. 

Scared to death.

And no one in Bethlehem saw it coming; and not even 1 of every 2 was left behind. And if Herod had known the thief was coming, would he have stayed awake and prevented it?

Surely he would.

So keep awake, because you don’t know the day, or the hour. Stay awake, because salvation is scary, because even a baby can be threatening. But then think: what is the threat? What are you afraid of? If you are afraid, maybe you understand. If you aren’t, maybe you don’t.

Keep awake. If only to see how this turns out. You don’t want to sleep through this.

Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, December 04, 2025

The Stupid, It Burns

Why does it look like he’s sitting in the engine room of ST:OS? (No, I’m not addressing his statement. It doesn’t deserve it.) When you don’t know whether to laugh, or cry. Alright, now I can laugh.
Sprouting shoots of normal accountability functions: (i) an IG report critical of Sec Def; (ii) serious congressional engagement with the Venezuela boat strikes; (iii) a change in DOD protocols, presumably sparked by internal legal concerns, to rescue rather than kill first-strike survivors.
Is our children learning?
Posted by at 2 comments:

But! “War”! “Narco-Terrorists”!!Franklin The RPG-Totin’ Turtle!”

Lawmakers are apparently being shown the full video of the Sept 2 boat strikes in their meetings with Adm Bradley and Gen Caine.

HIMES: “what I saw in that room was one of the most troubling things I’ve seen in my time in public service…you have two individuals and clear distress, without any means of locomotion, with a destroyed vessel, were killed by the United States.”
"Just a little bit more than the law will allow.” Maybe. Depends on who enforces the law. How many people are going to pay for this? And how many aren’t?
Posted by at 1 comment:

It’s Not Racism If It Isn’t Blatant Enough

 Only when six people say it is:

'This court's stay, this court's decision today guarantees that Texas's new map, with all its enhanced partisan advantage, will govern next year's elections for the House of Representatives. That result, as this Court has pronounced year in and year out, is a violation of the Constitution.'
Violation of the Constitution is such a harsh term when there are ambiguities present:
Texas is likely to succeed on the merits of its claim that the District Court committed at least two serious errors. First, the District Court failed to honor the presumption of legislative good faith by construing ambiguous direct and circumstantial evidence against the legislature. Contra, Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, 602 U. S. 1, 10 (2024).
Texas said the districts were redrawn based on race. Then realized that wasn’t so good, so argued in court that they didn’t really mean that. Which apparently created an ambiguity sufficient for the majority to decide the case without further ado, like, you know, full briefings and oral arguments.

Because white people deserve the presumption of good faith; especially when non-white people are getting screwed. The Constitution is color blind, after all. And the solution to unconstitutional racial discrimination, is to not discriminate. Against white people. Says the white court with 1 Uncle Tom.

Do I sound disgusted? If I don’t, or it’s ambiguous, I’m not doing it right.
Posted by at No comments:

A Station Wagon In Every Driveway!

Pretty sure consumers made the choice to switch from station wagons to minivans about 40 years ago. And then to SUV’s from minivans.

They also seem to like the choice of cars that aren’t gas guzzlers.
Trump’s economy is the best! A station wagon in every driveway!
Posted by at 1 comment:

None Dare Call It Racism

NYTimes on BlueSky:
President Trump on Tuesday delivered blatantly xenophobic public remarks, which included attacking Somali immigrants in Minnesota and calling them “garbage.”

Listen to "The Daily."
Question for the NYT style sheet: is “xenophobic” a synonym for “racist,” or nah? Would it be racist to say “All Belgians are miserable, fat bastards,” or just xenophobic?

Asking for a friend.
Posted by at 1 comment:

Music for Advent 2025: Dead by Christmas

Posted by at No comments:

Advent And Obscenity





I will, as you’ve already seen, repeat this sentiment from time to time.  Not too often, I hope, because the words are offensive, and are meant to be. I think of them as a contemporary version of the apocalyptic literature of Daniel and Revelation; or Mary’s Magnificat. It is meant to offend, in other words; but in a way that shakes us awake. Too much repetition, and it would dull and lose value. It’s pepper; and you don’t need too much of it.

The root of apocalyptic is: “fuck this shit.” Repeat that too often and you get SNAFU and FUBAR. Which were not apocalyptic expressions, but seem like it, coming out of the context of the “good war.” They challenge the memories of those of us too young to have known that war at all. We created a mythology for the Civil War; we did it again with the “Greatest Generation.” It’s hard to reconcile Tom Brokaw’s hagiography with those two earthy acronyms.

But SNAFU and FUBAR are resignation, not challenge; not defiance. It’s reconciliation to the conditions that prevail. Apocalyptic can’t be reconciled at all, unless we turn it into metaphor and symbolism and then literalism; or we tame it altogether. Daniel gets the first treatment, Revelation the second, the Magnificat the third. And Advent, which is the church season of the apocalyptic, often ignores the topic altogether.

Fuck this shit.

Is there a good way to say “Fuck this shit”? Yes. In Apocalyptic. Apocalyptic isn’t about doom and despair and destruction and collapse. It’s about the revelation of justice. Justice is disruptive, but the disruption is good. If you’re on the right side of it. The proud are cast down; so be humble. The rich lose their wealth; so don’t store up riches on earth. The well-fed go hungry, so share your food with the hungry now. It’s injustice, the tolerance for injustice, that’s the obscenity.

Part of the preparation for the Christchild is the preparation for the end of all things. The apocalypse, the final revelation, the truth behind all things. The coming of God’s justice. The reversal that resets the table. Permanently. The preparation for that, is to first recognize how screwed up things are.

One other thing: apocalyptic seems to be diametrically opposed to humility and care for self as care for others. But keep an open mind on the subject; we’ll be coming back to it.
Posted by at No comments:

First Thursday of Advent 2025



Romans 13:11-14

Salvation is near; wake from sleep

13:11 Besides this, you know what time it is, how it is already the moment for you to wake from sleep. For salvation is nearer to us now than when we became believers;

13:12 the night is far gone; the day is near. Let us then throw off the works of darkness and put on the armor of light;

13:13 let us walk decently as in the day, not in reveling and drunkenness, not in illicit sex and licentiousness, not in quarreling and jealousy.

13:14 Instead, put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires.

Advent is the season of “woke.”  The papal nuncio to America may not agree with me (why should he?) , but “woke” is not an unchristian extreme. The papal nuncio and I may disagree, but I stand with Archbishop Romero and the martyrs of El Salvador, and see in “woke” the cry for justice, and the Advent call, “Fuck this shit.”

And I think Paul agrees with me.

Paul was too canny to go full apocalyptic; that way lies a frontal challenge to the powers-that-be which would, in his day, cut very short his evangelical mission. Paul was not a coward. He just wasn’t interested in leading an uprising, anymore than Jesus was. Still, he’s telling the church in Rome he thinks they need to “woke up,” and “throw off the works of darkness and put on the armor of light.”

He’s talking about preparing ourselves for what is coming, which today we call the basileia tou theou. Of course, for most of us, December is all about gratifying the flesh and its desires; well, at least when it comes to food and drink and receiving gifts.🎁  I’m not going all ascetic on you, and quietly saying you must set aside all those things for Advent. But would it hurt you to think a bit less about gaining the world (or buying lots of unnecessary Christmas gifts), and a bit more about care of the soul?  Yours and everyone else’s yours touches in life. That’s not necessarily a religious statement; it’s the central theme of the redemption of Scrooge. Dickens barely mentions the “reason for the season,” but his story is perfectly in line with Advent’s season of spiritual preparation.

And in line with what Paul is saying. To throw off the works of darkness and put on the armor of light (and protect yourself from…what?) is not just an act of will; it requires a change of heart. And perhaps it even helps to raise an ebenezer. Anything to help us keep awake.  And that would be, to be woke; wouldn't it?
Posted by at No comments:

“Just One Side”

Reporter: If it is found that survivors were actually killed while clinging onto that boat, should Secretary Hegseth, Admiral Bradley, or others be punished?

Trump: I think you're going to find that this is war, that these people were killing our people by the millions actually..

Reporter: So you support the decision to kill survivors?

Trump: I support the decision to knock out the boats, and whoever is piloting those boats, they're guilty of trying to kill people in our country.
This many millions? 'Cause that would be almost 1/3rd of the country. I think we’d notice. And the country doesn’t “find” it is at war. It declares war; even if it is attacked first.

Shit, why try to be reasonable? This man is not fit to be a parking lot attendant at an empty parking lot.
The people on the boats aren’t real people to Trump. He only regards the kingpins as humans worthy of respect.

It gets worse:
  And worse:
full text of Trump's latest gutter racist rant about Somalis: "I wouldn't be proud to have the largest Somalian-- look at their nation. Look how bad their nation is. It's not even a nation. It's just people walking around killing each other. Look, these Somalians have taken billions of dollars out of our country. Billions and billions. They have a representative, Ilhan Omar, who they say married her brother. It's a fraud. She tries to deny it now but you can't really deny it because it just happened. She shouldn't be allowed to be a congresswoman and I'm sure people are looking at that. And she should be thrown the hell out of our country. They have destroyed Minnesota. You have an incompetent governor, you have a crooked governor. Walz should be ashamed. That beautiful land, that beautiful state. It's a hellhole right now. And those Somalians should be out of here. They've destroyed our country. And all they do is complain, complain, complain. You have her -- she's always talking about 'the Constitution provides me with uhhhh.' Go back to your own country and figure out your Constitution. All she does is complain about this country and without this country she would not be in very good shape. She probably wouldn't be alive right now. Somalia is considered by many to be the worst country on earth. I don't know. I haven't been there, I won't be there anytime soon I hope. But what these Somalian people have done to Minnesota is not even believable. And a lot of it starts with the governor. A lot of it starts with Barack Hussein Obama because that's when people started coming in. And you have to have people come in that are gonna love our country, cherish our country, they want to kiss our country goodnight. They talk about our country, we want them to pray for our country. This is not the people living in Minnesota. And she's a disaster. Her friends shouldn't even be allowed to be congresspeople. They shouldn't even be allowed to be congresspeople, because they don't represent the interests of our country."
But, you know, that’s just one side. 🙄

I guess Minnesota went to hell after Garrison Keillor retired. 🤷🏻‍♂️ 

That “rant” is better described as word vomit. I wonder when the press will start to notice the POTUS is a disgusting human being who is not fit to be among other people? Actually I don’t wonder; it’s never going to happen.
And Apparently Tom Emmer only represents white people. And it still makes as much sense as lowering drug prices by 700%. But we can’t talk about that, either. Maybe because it’s not racism, this could get more attention. He also knows he can do fuck-all about it.
Posted by at No comments:

Wednesday, December 03, 2025

So It Is Just Racism And Xenophobia

Trump hates Ilhan Omar because she's an intelligent, competent, and eloquent (in the best sense!) woman of color. And he has the vocabulary (and sensibilities) of a third-grader. None dare call it racism.
Posted by at No comments:

Justice Kavanaugh Assures Us…

... her 4th Amendment rights were only bruised, but not seriously violated.
Posted by at No comments:

The Worthy Poor

A Christmas message from the Trump Administration.
Posted by at 2 comments:

American Xmas



Let's get this out of the way.  Not my first rodeo (or post of this), but can't hurt to make it a "tradition."

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) in America 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.

The other matter is:  there was no single "church" in America (still isn't).  Christmas in Europe came directly from Rome and really wasn't widespread there until the 11th century (another story entirely), so most of what we think of as "traditional Christmas" is from medieval Europe (not that there's anything wrong with that!), and a lot of it in this country traces back to Tudor England.

We'll get to that.

The first important point is that Christmas didn't enter this country via the Roman Catholics (who gave us the word, after all).  Christmas was banned by the Puritans, who pretty much hated it.  But what they hated was not what Scrooge hated:  they didn't hate Christmas trees (that didn't show up until the 19th century here, anyway) or greens and garland, or even Santa Claus.  The Puritans hated the raucous nature of Christmas; oh, and that the word itself referred to the "Christ Mass," which was much too "Romish" (their word) to tolerate in the New World.

But I need to put that in context, so bear with me a moment.  As I said, most of the celebrations of Christmas we have today (in America, anyway) have roots in Tudor England and the court of Henry VIII.  There was gift giving even then, but gift giving was engaged in only among the peerage, and  Henry expected the best gifts to come to him. He was rather how you imagine Donald Trump to be on Christmas morning: his gifts to others are small, but he expects to receive large.  Gifting to family and friends was far in the future from Henry; adult to child giving further away still. Today Christmas is for children, first and foremost. The root of that is one I'm interested in tracing.

Henry’s Christmas celebrations also lasted for 12 days and included many feasts (mostly because the food was available and food storage almost nonexistent. Use it or lose it was the rule for much of Europe for centuries). It included the “Lord of Misrule,” usually a courtier given license to lead the drinking and carousing and general carrying on. That doesn’t reach back to Rome, either. But Puritans in America, like Increase Mather, tried to argue that it did.

In the Apostolical times the Feast of the Nativity was not observed....It can never be proved that Christ was born on December 25....The New Testament allows of no stated Holy-Day but the Lords-day...It was in compliance with the Pagan saturnalia that Christmas Holy-dayes were first invented. The manner of Christmas-keeping, as generally observed, is highly dishonorable to the name of Christ.

--Increase Mather, 1687.  

“If it had been the will of God that the several acts of Christ should have been celebrated with several solemnities, the Holy Ghost would have made known to us the day of his nativity, circumcision, presentation in the temple, baptism, transfiguration, and the like.” . . . . “This opinion of Christ’s nativity on the 25th day of December was bred at Rome.”

Also Increase Mather.

He's not wrong about that date for Christmas Day.  It was established by Rome. But his connection of Christmas to Saturnalia is where many an armchair historian and scholar has determined that's exactly what history says (it isn't.)  The salient point for us is that Christmas in America had little or nothing to do with the Church (or any church), and a great deal more to do with commerce.  I can explain that rather simply (this isn't a lecture, after all), by pointing to the figure of Santa Claus.

Take it as accurate the name “Santa Claus” from from the Danish figure Sinterklaas, who in turn comes from St. Nicholas (whose feast day is Dec. 6; we'll get there, too).  I have a picture of Sinterklaas, and it hardly resembles the figure of Clement Moore, Thomas Nast, or Haddon Sondblom (the artist of the '50's and '60's Coca-Cola Santas of my childhood.)  Sinterklass is depicted astride a regal white horse, bedecked with golden bridle and all the trimmings, as it flys through the sky (sans wings, not unlike the reindeer).  Sinterklaas sits regally and proud in the saddle, a tall, lean man wearing a Bishop's mitre and carrying a golden crozier.  Hardly the "jolly old elf" Moore says he saw in his living room. But Sinterklaas is a Catholic figure, a saint and the very picture of a Prince of the Church.  Santa Claus is a creature of mythology ("elf") who comes as a kind and trustworthy peddler, taking care of  Christmas for Mom and Dad and (especially) the kids.  Who are presumed to be "good" without having to prove it (post-Romanticism has been good for children, by and large). In the latest very American iteration, toy stores in "Red One" (the newest Xmas movie about Santa) all have "portals" to the North Pole, the better to deliver the toys which are provided to the children.  Or...something.  It's all about commerce, anyway, which is hardly what Sinterklaas was about.

Our American Christmas, in brief, was never about Advent and scriptures and taking care of the poor, which is one of the lessons of the Christchild being born in a feeding trough ("manger" is the nicer euphemism).  Although now we make the former saint kneel beside the Babe,  in tacit recognition that Santa Claus has eclipsed the "reason for the season."  Which it was in Europe; but never really was in America.




The fact is, Christmas as we know it and celebrate it in America, is pretty much an invention of the market place, and has only and ever tangentially been related to Christmas as a religious observance, as the "Christ Mass" held to honor the birth of the Savior. It's more like the two celebrations occur coincidentally at the same time of year, than that one is a vulgar and degrading corruption of the Platonic ideal of the other. Dickens has Scrooge attend church on Christmas morning, a changed man.  It's not that Christmas fell on a Sunday that month, but that Christmas was a holy day throughout Europe.  Look back up at what Increase Mather said; there was never such an observance in America.  Even today, most non-Catholic (and Episcopalian?) churches in America close on Sunday when that's Xmas Day.  Once you understand all that, the picture becomes much clearer; or perhaps darker.

If you want to understand how Christmas got started in America, consider the example of the European Feast of Fools. As New Advent says, it was "a celebration marked by much license and buffoonery." Scholars again differ on the reach and importance of this festival; some crown it as a n important "release valve" of the tensions and pressures of feudal society. Others, like Michel Foucault, downplay it. It was limited to northern France and a few other regions of Europe, and always opposed by the Church. The lesson for us is that this 'feast' was a folk celebration, not a church one, and its irreverence was tolerated by the Church because they couldn't stop it, more than it was encouraged as a way of reminding the peasants of their place in the hierarchy (a comparison to Christmas in the slave holding South will prove instructive here, if I remember to mention it again). Christmas, too, was a folk celebration, one more honored in the British South (thanks to the presence of the Episcopal church) than in Puritan New England (where it was officially banned for a time, in at least some of the New England states). Restad's history presents Christmas as largely a folk celebration, in contrast to Thanksgiving, which was vigorously promoted in the 19th century by Sara Josepha Hale, who did more than any individual to promote Thanksgiving as a national holiday (ironically, the objections to it were on church/state grounds. It was argued that a national day of giving thanks would violate the First Amendment, an objection that was finally obviated by the times, when Lincoln established what later became the holiday) Aside from the religious entanglement objection, Thanksgiving was regarded as more of a "New England" celebration than a national one, for much of that century. Christmas, on the other hand, crept into public celebrations from many lands and many hands, and was early on largely disconnected from any religious observance, and while promoted as connected to the Christchild, was really no more dependent upon Church sanction than it is now. The idea, in other words, that there was a "pure" Christmas observance in America once upon a time, which the marketplace or the public square corrupted, is as false as the idea that the Christmas celebration we know now descended in an almost unbroken line from the Roman Saturnalia. It just happens that people like an excuse to exchange gifts and eat a lot of food, and especially for people from a northern European culture, winter is a jolly good time to do that.

Christmas that year, not one to look forward to, was one we should alway look back on.

That's the opening sentence of "Looking Back on Christmas" by William Owens.  I don't know if it's memoir or fiction, but it's become one of my favorite Christmas stories.   It's the story of a family gathering in rural Texas on Christmas Eve.  The family gathers, then sits down to dinner, and after dinner:

After the first table [old Texas tradition my family carried on with in my childhood:  the men ate first, then retired, and the women and children ate.  Yeah, my wife was appalled by that, too, and it was long before we were married that she encountered it.] the men and the bigger boys built up a big fire in the pasture between the house and the front gate.  Then, while the women stood on the front porch to watch, Uncle Charlie gave the little children firecrackers and showed them how to shoot them.  He put a paper fuse against a live coal.  When it had lighted he threw it away from the fire into the dark.

"Don't ever let one go off in your hand," he said, "And don't throw it close to nobody.  Somebody might get hurt."

While we went through the firecrackers he had given us, the men made a trip back to the kitchen.  This time they brought the jug with them and set it in the back end of a wagon.  They brought out more fireworks, and Monroe had the sack of powder in his coat pocket.

"Time for a roman candle," Uncle Charlie said.

He took a long red roman candle and went to the fire.

"You all watch now," he said, "I'm gonna hold it like I was aiming to shoot the gate."

Charlie runs into the dark and let's the candle shoot balls of fire, then he gets Othal to join him in a roman candle battle.  Full disclosure:  I once did something similar with my cousin, although in summer, not winter.  We used plastic tubes from his golf bag to launch bottle rockets at each other.  We didn't even have the excuse of alcohol, we were just young and dumb.

Anyway, you get the flavor of the celebration.  Firecrackers going off, then roman candles being fired at each other in close range.  Then when those are exhausted and everyone's tired of running around and through the house:

Uncle Charlie was not ready for the fun to be over.  He went up the steps and across the front porch.  Aunt Niece was standing in the door, with the lamplight behind her.  He lifted her chin with his fingers and went on past her, to the chimney corner where he kept his double-barreled shotgun.  Then he came out with the gun under his arm and a box of shells in his hand.

Near the fire, he loaded both barrels and set the stock against his shoulder.

"You aiming at the gate?" Othal asked.

"You got to aim at something."

He fired, and after the first blast we heard shot rattle against the gate.

"Got it first shot," Othal said, and ran for his own gun.

In no time at all, five guns were blazing away at the gate, and the little children were running for hiding places under the house.  I shivered at the sound, but felt safe, for their backs were to us and they were aiming at the gate.

Then Othal came running around the house, loading and firing as he ran, and some of the others took after him.  The women had run inside, but I could hear them telling the men to stop.  Too scared to stay under the house, I crawled out and started for the door.  In the darkness I can straight into Otha's knees, and he let a double-barreled blast go off right over my head, leaving a burning flash in my eyes and a ringing in my ears.

The gate was "a wide, heavy gate made of oak timbers fourteen feet long and an inch thick."  However, the next morning:  "We went to look at the gate, and found it half hanging from the posts, with the timbers drilled and splintered by shot."  The story ends this way:

Uncle Charlie came in with a backstick for the fireplace.  My grandmother was waiting for him.

"You ruint the gate," she said.

"I reckon we did."

He laughed and the light in his blue eyes showed he was not sorry.  She frowned and went out to the front porch.

Aunt Niece came in, with a peeled orange in her hand.

"Christmas gift," he said to her.

She went up to him and stuck a slice of orange between his teeth.  They were both laughing without making a sound, and once he leaned over and kissed her.

"I had me some Christmas," he said.

Not so long ago, that story.  It wasn't just in the 1800's that Christmas was a lot different.  But I cite it because this is precisely the celebration of Christmas the Puritans despised.  And frankly, when Christmas Day is spent either in the glow of unbridled lust (wanting goods is as lustful as wanting sexual congress), or the afterglow of "Now what?", I think we could do with a bit more of a raucous Christmas celebration.  Sometimes I think we vanquished the Puritans, and still the Puritans won.

The interesting thing about Christmas in America is that it's always been a glorious bastard, a jackdaw of a project grabbing "Christmas trees" from Germany (related to the "Paradeisbaum" of the medieval German morality plays) and decking the halls and boar's heads and feasting from England (which may or may not be related to, or even influenced by, Druidic practices. It's always seemed like a bit of a stretch to me to go from kissing under the mistletoe directly back to Frazer's "golden bough"). Carols were a medieval creation coming, per Restad, from pagan folk dances that people liked and simply "Christianized" (like most things, the Church couldn't beat 'em, so it joined 'em), although many of the carols we know today are products of the 18th and 19th centuries (so it goes). The idea of caroling, IOW, is much older than most of our carols. As Restad points out, Christmas in America was cobbled together from European bits and pieces, and the parts that fit in America stuck, and the parts that didn't fell away.

We forget, too, that America initially had no holidays. Europe had them because of the church, which was universal throughout the different countries of Europe, and because of local customs. But without a universal church, or established local customs, America went, for almost a century, without any national holiday which all citizens could claim as their own. Ironically, again, that holiday became Christmas; but not because all Americans were, or were even presumed to be, Christians.

Stephen Nissenbaum argues that the American Christmas was formed more by Clement Clark Moore's poem than any other single source. (He also thinks Moore's poem shows the transformation of gift giving from peer to peer (or husband to wife, or employer to employee, as seen in A Christmas Carol), to parent to child.  For Nissenbaum, Moore's "jolly old elf" is a harmless peddler with a sack of goods, which he gives rather than sells, and leaves for the children.  It's not that Moore invented the custom, but that he popularized it.) Accepting Nissenbaum's position arguendo, what is most notable about "The Night Before Christmas" is that it creates a holiday and the celebration of it, without ever getting closer to religion than the word "Christmas" (which the Puritan New Englanders despised as a "Romish" word, but which, by Moore's day, had lost almost all religious connotation). This was more a feature than a bug in the 19th century. Dicken's Christmas Carol comes closer to invoking the religious reasons for the season, but he does it mostly in terms of Victorian sentimentality, than in terms of any church doctrine. Penne Restad points out that Christmas was grabbed onto by merchants in America almost as soon as it emerged as a public celebration. The emergence of the holiday coincided with a renewed interest in the power and importance of domesticity, an interest probably prompted by the Industrial Revolution and the quick acceptance by Americans of the ideals of the Romantic movement (especially the importance of children as children). Personally, I think the tradition arose from a combination of Romanticism and the Pietistic movement of the 17th century, which effects lingered long in a Protestant dominated culture, but Restad makes clear the connections between the desires for domestic values and the importance of a uniting holiday, one everyone could gather into despite cultural ("Germany" as we know it, for example, didn't exist in the 19th century. We often overlook how many cultural differences there were between Europeans, differences that carried over into America) and doctrinal differences. In this sense, Christmas was the first truly "American" holiday. Grafted onto European roots, without doubt; but made a holiday both observant Christians and non-Christians (and yes, there were some, even in the 19th century!) could engage in. It's not at all insignificant that Christmas in America began almost as a religious observance almost anyone could join, and quickly became a public holiday everyone could revel in. And aside from the Puritan's objections to the holiday's Catholic roots, it was the revelry they objected to almost as much.





Where were we then? Oh, yes: Christmas has always been two things at once, especially in America. It's never been a particularly religious holiday, so much as it's been a holiday named for and celebrated around a religious observance (which is still more honored in the breach than in the keeping). Christmas became, almost as soon as it was universally celebrated, a celebration of hearth and home, of domesticity (to this day, does a Christmas tree remind you first of Rockefeller Center, or of your childhood home?) Restad shows us that the Christmas tree itself became an American custom because it came with stories of German families gathered around a small tree on a table top, revealed in all its decorations and offerings of presents by the parents to the excited children. It was the American twist that the tree got bigger and bigger until it had to scrape whatever ceiling it was placed under from the floor on which it had to sit. Some things truly never change.

And I have to add here:  that's a problem in its own right, though probably not the one you are thinking of right now:

In their comprehension of poverty and its solutions, most Americans moved little beyond Dickens. They believed their Christmas generosity praiseworthy. Charles Dudley Warner thought the present American Christmas to be "fuller of real charity and brotherly love, and nearer the Divine intention" than earlier Christmases. The New York Tribune found the holiday "hearty and generous-minded, [full of] good-cheer and open-handed hospitality." "Nowhere in Christendom," it contended, "are the poor remembered at Christmas-tide so generously as they are in American cities, especially in our own."

In this show of self-congratulation, Americans persisted in seeing poor relief as a matter of individual action to be undertaken on much the same terms as gift-giving within the circle of family. That is, Christmas was the time to give. The best and largest gifts went to those closest to the circle's center. The lesser gifts, in descending order of value, went out to relatives and acquaintances of decreasing importance. The worthy poor, as the outermost members of the larger community family, received gifts too, though the least valuable of all the gifts given.
Penne L. Restad, Christmas in America, p. 139, 140

Perhaps I should explain who the "worthy poor" were:

A sense that there were those who were worthy of relief and those who were not qualified the attention devoted to poverty relief [after the Civil War], though. Children almost always deserved aid, as did honest women. Seldom did the same plea go out for men. A seasonal article on the New York Tribune implored the public to provide for poor children. In 1877, it reminded readers that most Americans were "Christian people," and advised them to try their best to keep children from being deprived at this time "when they think that all good gifts and gladness come straight from Him whose birthday it is." At the same time, the paper advised the sympathetic to ignore plain street beggars.
As Restad notes:

The sentimentalization of "worthy paupers" at Christmas time, whether in fact or in fiction, did not bring into question the essential structure of the market economy that had, if only indirectly, produced their poverty. Instead, it imbued destitute women and vagabond children with admirable qualities that existed apart from materialism, perhaps even as substitues for tangible wealth. It also aroused the sympathies of readers by giving a face to poverty, and placed the means of solving the problems of hunger and homelessness in the hands of individuals.(p. 135)
I've learned to look to history for lessons in how we got here, and to understand culture as a genetic inheritance (metaphorically speaking) almost as pre-determined as eye color or gender. we think what we think and act the way we act in part because of who our ancestors were, and what they passed on as important and valuable. The "worthy poor" is an interesting category, especially at this season of the year, when even the most unbelieving among us is encouraged to reflect on the lessons of the man who grew up from the Christchild. Well, perhaps lessons is not the right word. As Bob Cratchit puts it to his wife, speaking of his youngest son:

"Somehow he gets thoughtful sitting by himself so much, and thinks the strangest things you ever heard. He told me, coming home, that he hoped the people saw him in the church, because he was a cripple, and it might be pleasant to them to remember upon Christmas Day, who made lame beggars walk, and blind men see."
We don't, after all, want to be reminded that Jesus never put a faith test before someone before Jesus would speak to them, and the one time it is recorded that he did, the Syro-Phoenician woman rebukes him quite accurately. We still prefer our Jesus be more like us, and to start him up from childhood that way, every new year.

I'm well aware of the John Cheever story  about Christmas being a sad season for the poor. First it crossed my mind as just a good post title; then I reflected on how much it represents that American ideal that individual actions can alleviate poverty for the "worthy poor." I can't think of a story that illustrates that better than Cheever's. It's not really a question of generosity, even, because that question gets down to the issue of ownership in the first place. Restad notes in her history of Christmas in America that it was the affluence and abundance produced after the Civil War that led people to think of widening the circle of their gift-giving, to begin to include at all the "worthy poor." Hard to condemn such compassion, and any critique of it looks just like that: condemnation. But there were other voices, even in the 19th century, even in America:

People nowadays interchange gifts and favors out of friendship, but buying and selling is considered absolutely inconsistent with the mutual benevolence which should prevail between citizens and the sense of community of interest which supports our social system. According to our ideas, buying and selling is essentially anti-social in all its tendencies. It is an education in self-seeking at the expense of others, and no society whose citizens are trained in such a school can possibly rise above a very low grade of civilization
-- Edward Bellamy

The ultimate aim of production is not production of goods but the production of free human beings associated with one another on terms of equality.
-- John Dewey

I confess that I am not charmed with the ideal of life held out by those who think that the normal state of human beings is that of struggling to get on; that the trampling, crushing, elbowing, and treading on each other's heels, which form the existing type of social life, are the most desirable lot of human beings
-- John Stuart Mill

The gross national product includes air pollution and advertising for cigarettes, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. It counts special locks for our doors, and jails for the people who break them ... It does not allow for the health of our families, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play.
-- Robert F. Kennedy

We must recognize that we can't solve our problems now until there is a radical redistribution of economic and political power....[What is required is] a radical restructuring of the architecture of American society.
-- Martin Luther King, Jr
There was a story about a Christmas yard display in Detroit that was too political for some of the neighbors. And generally that's our line on Christmas: we want to reserve it "for the children," and of course, that's still how we think of the "worthy poor," as children. Hard to think of men as children, so they get excluded from the "worthy poor" very easily. We also don't like quotes like those above associated with our Christmas revels. Fair enough. But perhaps even at Christmas we could look again at the ideas of scarcity and abundance, and consider again whether charity really means merely scraping the crumbs off our tables, or if it means something more.

Christmas is a sad season for the poor; but that doesn't mean it has to be; or that our charity has to be based on sorrow, either.

So is our Christmas ruined by all this commercialism? Depends on whether or not you agree with Linus about "what Christmas is all about." I like his answer, personally. But that's the answer for some of us; it isn't, and doesn't have to be, the answer for all of us. Let it be unto you according to your...well, faith, is how the German E&R Church concluded that blessing. But this isn't necessarily a matter of faith. So let it be unto you according to your best interest. Keep Christmas as it best suits you. And may it be a blessing unto you. Now, and into the ages.

Posted by at 5 comments:

Music for Advent: A Playlist (Excerpt)

Caveat: I have no idea if this will work. You may have to manually stop each video, and then activate them in sequence. Apologies for any such inconvenience. 


 


I have a playlist, that started out as a mixtape, of Christmas music I assembled back when tape (cassette) was the only way to do that at home. I play it again every year, usually just after Thanksgiving. (I started that practice playing it on the way back to Austin from my parents’ house after Thanksgiving. Over 40 years later, that habit has worn a groove that feels like tradition.) These are the first three selections from that playlist.
Posted by at No comments:

First Wednesday of Advent 2025



Psalm 122

Gladness in God's house

122:1 I was glad when they said to me, "Let us go to the house of the LORD!"

122:2 Our feet are standing within your gates, O Jerusalem.

122:3 Jerusalem built as a city that is bound firmly together.

122:4 To it the tribes go up, the tribes of the LORD, as was decreed for Israel, to give thanks to the name of the LORD.

122:5 For there the thrones for judgment were set up, the thrones of the house of David.

122:6 Pray for the peace of Jerusalem: "May they prosper who love you.

122:7 Peace be within your walls and security within your towers."

122:8 For the sake of my relatives and friends I will say, "Peace be within you."

122:9 For the sake of the house of the LORD our God, I will seek your good.

Advent is one of those times when we “go into the house of the Lord.” Never thought of that, had you? Because I don’t mean church on December Sundays, or Wednesday nights (did those services a few times in my ministry). Going to church is a fine thing, but I mean something else; and it isn’t going to the mall or the store the website to render unto Manna your credit cards. I mean, in fact, something a little more spiritual and a little less physical.

Although it can be spiritual in the physical. I live near enough to a mall that the traffic around my neighborhood is multiplied by the season. The grocery store I frequent is crowded two weeks before Thanksgiving, and the crowds don’t abate until New Year’s Day. The traffic around the mall is so bad I avoid the entire area near and around it; and that starts in early November, too. By December it’s a nightmare that won’t end until the 25th. But that, too, can be the House of the Lord.

At the time the Psalmist wrote, the House of the Lord was undoubtedly the Temple in Jerusalem. Synagogue centered worship came after 73 C.E. The “House of the Lord” had become metaphorical by then, less a location than a presence. Ezekiel foreshadowed it when he had a vision of God on a chariot throne, with wheels within wheels, rising out of the Temple after the Babylonia assault, and going wherever God saw fit. That vision was a metaphor, a symbol of God untethered from place, free to go anywhere and be found everywhere. Centuries later Jesus would ask people why they went into the wilderness to find John the Baptizer, and imply they did it to find the presence of God. 

Wilderness was a good place to seek God, away from noise and distractions that take us away from God, and into the world. But the House of the Lord sounds like a noisome place, and full of people. Is it a paradox to seek God there?

No more than to seek God in the quotidian, the every day. Silence and solitude can be restorative and beneficial. It can also be escape, and self-involvement. Self-care can be good; but it can be inhibiting. I hate crowds with a passion, especially holiday crowds in stores. But in the bleak midwinter when indoors is better than out, (and I do love a bookstore at any time of the year), crowds are hard to avoid. And even harder to tolerate.

Unless, if I may suggest, you turn that experience into the House of the Lord. Not for worship and prayers and singing; but for finding the presence of God in whatever you do for others; because Jesus tells us, we’re doing it for him.

If you want a spiritual Christmas, you probably want to think you’re doing it for the baby Jesus. So share that gift: patience; kindness; thoughtfulness for others, instead of yourself and how you’re inconvenienced. I’m not talking to you, really, Imagined Reader; I’m talking to me. I really hate holiday crowds.  But I don’t want to ruin everyone else’s holiday; or my own. So maybe if I recast it as going up to the House of the Lord (why not?) and I’m glad to be there; maybe if I pray (silently!) for peace within those walls and for the sake of my relatives and friends I say, "Peace be within you,” maybe it will make the holidays come a bit closer to the most wonderful time of the year we all wish it would be.

That doesn’t have to be just a metaphor, after all. And it can be for absolutely anybody. When I say it, it seems simple and silly. But what else is the basileia tou theou, except the place you live when you expect to live in it?
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)