Haunted By the Ghosts of Christmyths

This time of year brings out the Grinch in me, mainly because I come across people who want to cajole me into a state of euphoria simply because “it’s the Christmas season.”  I don’t waste my time trying to explain that technically the Christmas season doesn’t start until Christmas Day.  I refrain from correcting the person because it will entice him or her even more to cure me of my grinchiness.

In addition to the annual viewing of well-beloved animation TV specials, reruns of It’s a Wonderful Life, and one of the 20+ film versions of A Christmas Carol, I expect to encounter church newsletters and/or sincere church people who want to share the alleged origins of various Christmas traditions and symbols. These origins are replete with fine historical detail but, unfortunately, are lacking in historical fact or evidence.

Below is a list of classic Christmas legends that will more than likely find their way into my email inbox in the next few weeks.  These stories should be deader than a doornail but seem to come back like a ghost to haunt me with Dickensian glee every December.

Myth 1:  The song “The 12 Days of Christmas” is filled with coded references to various tenets and doctrines of the Christian faith.  This one has been around for way too long.  I’ve even seen a children’s illustrated book based on it that shows how Jesus is the “partridge in the pear tree,” the Old and New Testaments are the “two turtledoves,” and the Trinity is symbolized by the “three French hens.”  The popular myth claims that European Catholics (under persecution from the Church of England) made up this song to help them remember the basic teachings of their faith.  The glaring problem with this origins story is that the basic teachings supposedly hidden in this song are common to both Catholics and Anglicans.

Other than the fact that no shred of historical evidence has revealed this song to have catechetical origins, it’s a fine theory.  Let me be clear:  I don’t care how many times you’ve read it in a church newsletter or heard it from the sweetest, dearest Sunday School teacher – this one simply isn’t true.

Myth 2:  The candy cane was invented by a Christian candy maker to explain the death of Jesus.  This whopper (candy pun intended) of a story claims that the popular yuletide sweet was intended to be a “J” to symbolize Jesus, with the red stripe representing his blood and the white representing purity.  One version of this myth claims that it was used by Christians to secretly disclose themselves to other Christians during persecution.  According to snopes.com, however, history shows that the candy cane came on the scene in Europe in the late 17^th century – long after Europe had been Christianized.   Further, the first candy canes were all white; the red stripe was added around the early 19^th century.  While it can be a creative way to teach children about Jesus, that was not the original purpose.

Myth 3:  Bombarding the ACLU with tons of Christmas cards all at once will temporarily shut them down.  This email encourages Christians to engage in deception (which, when I last checked, was not a Christian virtue) by sending Christmas cards with “contribution enclosed” written on the envelope to the organization that (according to this myth) is intent on pressuring all businesses to refrain from using the word “Christmas” in their advertising.  By sending tons of Christmas cards, the email recipient will be part of a movement to shut down the ACLU office in New York.  Again, snopes.com says the NY office is well-staffed to handle such a proposed onslaught of mail.  While the ACLU is often derided for being “anti-religious,” the organization has defended the rights of religious people in numerous cases.  Plus, retailers set their own policies regarding seasonal advertising.  The ACLU has nothing to do with it.

Myth 4:  Target is banning employees from saying “Merry Christmas.”  Each year, retailers are judged by religious conservatives by how much (or how little) overtly religious language is used in their product marketing.  For the record, Target has said its employees may use their own discretion in how to greet customers during the holiday season.  The company, citing that the observance of Christmas, Hanukkah, and Kwanza are all in December, has used the phrase “holiday season” in its advertising to acknowledge these observances.  One may agree or disagree with this compromise, but it’s quite a stretch to claim Target is deliberately banning religious language.

There are several other dubious Christmas-themed email hoaxes that will arrive as dutifully as a shepherd to the manger at a Christmas pageant.  Here’s a hint to help you discern the truthfulness of an email:  if an email is accompanied by the phrase “this is a true story,” it’s not.  Period.

Seizing Caesar: A Reflection on Faith & Politics

Though some decry mixing “politics and religion,” we would be wise to remember that the abolitionist and Civil Rights movements were grounded in religious fervor.  It is impossible (and I would argue, offensive) to ask people of faith to leave their religious convictions  outside the voting booth.  But, to borrow the title of a book by pastor and activist Jim Wallis, Who speaks for God?

In nearly every major election, some politicians aim to garner the voting support of Christians.  There is an emphasis (particularly among conservative evangelicals) to “vote Christian.”  To better communicate what is meant by this, various faith-based groups (i.e., political activist Christians and special interest organizations) have published helpful “voter guides” for local, state, and national elections.

After perusing a few websites with downloadable files for church bulletin inserts, I discovered that in addition to the usual “hot topics” (abortion and homosexuality), the so-called “discerning Christian” should be focused on  the death tax, Medicare, cap and trade, prayer in school, U.S./Israel relations, and (my personal favorite) “taking back America for God.”  Granted, faith convictions certainly shape how one approaches these various issues.  But Christians of good conscience find themselves on both sides of these and many other issues.

When Jesus preached his first sermon in his hometown, he selected a passage from Isaiah 61 that declared: “The Spirit of the Sovereign Lord is on me, because the Lord has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor.  He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim freedom for the captives and release from darkness for the prisoners,to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”

Two things should be noted: 1) From the beginning, Jesus’ “platform” was to be good news particularly to the poor, the downtrodden, the wounded, and the grieving; and 2) Jesus rejected political power and never once encouraged his disciples to seek the power of government and “take Israel back for God.”

While the duties of a political office can be carried out honorably, the very nature of politics requires some sort of compromise.  For example, I find it rather curious that Christians who seem to be the most vocal about the sanctity of life have no problem supporting nuclear arms proliferation – which would lead to the taking of life.  From the earliest accounts, Christians were people who did not practice abortion in the midst of a culture that regularly embraced it.  They were a counter-cultural witness to “a more excellent way.”  The early Church stood as a witness against abortion – NOT because they believed in “individual rights” (which is an Enlightenment concept) – but because they believed life was a good gift from God and because they believed abortion violated the commandment prohibiting the taking of life.

Until Emperor Constantine’s conversion to the Christian faith (which is still debatable as to the nature of his conversion), Christians rejected all forms of violence.  Many refused conscription into the Roman military (which was seen as an unpatriotic, even traitorous act) because they took Jesus’ words about loving enemies seriously.

The fact that many American Christians see no inconsistency by voting against abortion and for arms buildup is evidence that we are quite confused about our convictions.  I’m not arguing for the dismantling of our national military.  I’m simply pointing out that Christians ought to be careful about how we relate to these issues.

The problem with Christians in the political arena is that too often we are focused on what we are against.  Plus we spend an awful amount of time and energy demonizing the opposing side when said opposing side consists of brothers and sisters in the faith who hold equally strong convictions, morals, and values.

In his fine book, The Myth of the Christian Nation, Greg Boyd (an evangelical pastor) writes, “It is much easier, and more gratifying, to assume a morally superior stance and feel good about doing our Christian duty to [‘vote against sin’]. Perhaps this explains why many evangelicals spend more time fighting against certain sinners in the political arena than they do sacrificing for those sinners. But Jesus calls us to follow his example by taking the more difficult, less obvious, much slower, and more painful road…the road of self-sacrificial love.”

When Christians turn to the state for influence, we may win elections but we lose our integrity.  Jesus never sought the power of Caesar.  And if Christians in America continue to denounce suffering service as weak, impractical, and irresponsible, then they reveal themselves to have utterly misunderstood the cross of Christ.  The New Testament was written to and for persons who found themselves in the minority of a culture, not the majority.  If you want to read scriptures for when you are the majority in a culture and want to run its government, I suggest you consult the Koran.