I admit that I have long struggled with the idea of Christmas being a “Christian” holiday. Though “Saint Nicholas’” roots are rooted deeply in church lore, there is no biblical support for the holiday and, as the Puritans asserted, the day itself was originally a pagan festival now masquerading as a Christian one.
Skye Jethani discusses Christianity’s strained relationship with Christmas in his great book The Divine Commodity: Discovering A Faith Beyond Consumer Christianity. He notes that:
In 1855, newspapers in New York reported that Methodist, Baptist, and Presbyterian churches would be closed on Christmas Day because “they do not accept the day as a Holy One.” And by the 1860s only eighteen states officially recognized the holiday.
Jethani goes on to make some astute observations:
Christmas only gained acceptance among a majority of Protestant Christians when it gained wide acceptance by the American public in general. And that can be attributed to the rise of Santa Claus in the secular pantheon. By the 1920s, Old Saint Nick became a marketing juggernaut for retailers who had embraced Christmas as the premier season for shopping. Church leaders no longer objected to Christmas on the grounds that it was a pagan holiday. Instead their concern shifted to the ungodly materialism and indulgence of desire they saw being promoted in the name of Christ.
The New York Times conducted a survey of Christmas sermons in 1931 and reported a common theme: “the suggestion that Christmas could not survive if Christ were thrust into the background by materialism.” Another popular sermon of the period railed that Advent had become little more than a “profit-seeking period.”
Sermons about the pagan origins of Christmas or the danger of rampant materialism in Christ’s name are unlikely to be heard today. In recent years, the dominant message heard from the Christian community during the holiday season has been precisely the opposite. Now it seems many Christians are offended when unchecked materialism in December is not explicitly associated with Christ.
And then, less than a paragraph later, Jethani makes the piercing observation:
In less than a century, Christians have gone from opposing over-consumption at Christmas to demanding it be done in Christ’s name alone. If Christians engaged the Advent season as they did in generations past, by modeling moderation and self-denial or by ignoring the holiday altogether, it would likely destroy the economy.
His conclusion:
To ensure economic survival, consumers are stirred into a buying frenzy every winter with the goal of making this year’s shopping season more prosperous than the last. Santa Claus has been the mascot of this manipulation since the early twentieth century, but if more Christians have their way the season of shopping will someday be inaugurated by the appearance of Jesus Christ at the end of the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade.
Though I am no sociologist, I find Jethani’s line of thinking quite intriguing. It has been consumerism that has pushed American Christianity to adopt, embrace and promote the “holiday” (remember, the word holiday actually means “holy day.”) and then insist that, though the external shell of greed and materialism not be done away with, it be done in Christ’s name.
What do you think? Has Jethani too closely aligned consumerism, American Christianity and Christmas or is he right on the mark? Or is the answer somewhere in between?
You may want to do some research in terms of the historical accuracy of the claim that Christmas was originally a pagan holiday:
http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=16-10-012-v
Yes, I read that piece last year.
Ok. Well. I just figured you’d prefer to be historically accurate in what you’re presenting - or at least let it be clear that not everyone thinks as many of the Puritans did on this issue.
As far as the consumer-driven nature of today’s Americanized Christianity, it makes me sick. What is more dangerous in my opinion is the pressure it puts on Christian communities and individuals to celebrate Christmas in ways that are something other than biblical. A tremendous amount of money and energy is spent celebrating that could well be properly redirected toward other more important concerns. It’s like the food drives during Thanksgiving. Do they really do anything to address the systemic issues of poverty in our society?
Still, on the other hand, I believe critiques likes Jethani’s can serve to go overboard. There is nothing wrong with capitalism–it is inherently the result of a Judeo-Christian worldview–properly understood. Not that I endorse everything that’s done in the name of capitalism today, but socialism/communism and a return to Stone Age communal living without things like private property and free trade is quite likely an equally opposite error.
Uh, Kevin, capitalism and socialism aren’t the only two options.
I think the point of the post is that Christians operate under Kingdom economics. And that’s neither you-deserve-all-you-can-get capitalism. Nor is it trust-the-government-for-your-economic-salvation socialism.
I appreciated Jethani’s clarity. We don’t need to swallow the values of either worldly system.
It’s neither our stuff, nor the government’s stuff. We are stewards of God’s stuff.
Kevin,
After reading the argument, their point is that Christians arrived at December 25th apart from pagan influence. However, once arriving there, the article concedes that there was a re-appropriation, even if Christian took it back after it was taken from them. The point Brent is making, I think, is not that it was not first a Christian holiday, then pagan, then Christian, but rather, that it was at some point pagan and then appropriated for Christ, which seems consistent with the article.
Adam
Jarrod,
I didn’t say capitalism and socialism were the only two options. I said their extremes are two equally damaging errors on opposite sides and we ought to be critiquing both. Additionally, as I said, I wasn’t defending capitalism as it is often done today. I said a proper understanding of capitalism is consistent with and the result of a Judeo-Christian worldview. The Mosaic Law quite rightly points out that things like private property, ownership, trade, just scales, and the like are all appropriate aspects of how to live and do business in this world. The New Testament also quite rightly enforces the same, the book of Philemon being one obvious example. Being a Kingdom-minded person doesn’t nullify these things. In fact, being stewards of God’s creation only *strengthens* the argument that they are appropriate and gives capitalism a moral foundation from which to work that is at once both biblical and right-headed.
Adam,
Ok. But we are talking about the fundamental understanding of what Christmas is and was. You can’t do that without mentioning its actual origin by implying that the Puritans were wholly correct in supposing that the origin of Christmas was in paganism. It may well have been for them as far as their limited knowledge went, but that truly isn’t the whole story. To call you back to what Brent originally wrote, “the day itself was originally a pagan festival now masquerading as a Christian one”. According to Dr. Tighe and his article, that is manifestly untrue. It may have become that, but that’s not what it *originally* was.
First, let me posit that Kevin is crazy if he thinks that an economic system whose engine is fueled primarily by self-interest (see Adam Smith) is Biblical.
While capitalism’s focus on freedom is certainly it’s most Godly aspect, it’s reliance on self-interest as a driving force is its least Godly. Stewardship is a far cry from self-interest. And capitalism without self-interest isn’t capitalism.
All that aside, I think Jethani has a fascinating point that’s worth thinking about–while the Christmas Crusaders wouldn’t say that they are arguing for materialism in the name of Christ, I think he’s got a good point that they are fighting for exactly that.
That said, I’m hesitant to boycott Christmas on religious grounds either–I think it’s a beautiful holiday celebrating the Incarnation, and is the only real serious religious celebration we get each year (Easter OUGHT to be bigger, but I always screw up and let it pass by too fast).
It’s the only time a year when I spend a month pondering the incarnation, listening to music about it, celebrating it by spending good times with family and friends, throwing parties and giving gifts.
That seems awful Godly to me.
I do wonder if there is any self-interest in salvation. Hmm…
Jake, If you don’t want Resurrection Day to pass you by, try practicing Lent. Now there is a Christian celebration!
Brent,
New to the blog and don’t remember how I found it, but I love it.
Kevin — to your point that Capitalism is consistent with a judeo-christian world view — I’d say you should reconsider based on historical scholarship. Having just spent an entire semester in graduate school working through the development of Capitalism, there is a general consensus between both Marxist and non-Marxist historians that Capitalism did not develop until somewhere between the 16th or 17th century. It should be noted that while trade, wealth, and private property (in some forms) did exist prior to the development of Capitalism, Capitalism is marked by dispossession of peasants from the means of subsistence (i.e. land), where laborers have nothing to sell but their own labor power.
What we see in scripture is kin-based modes of production based on affinity and marriage. These are tribal groups, either hunter-gather societies or subsistence farmers. Or, with the Roman Empire we see a tributary mode of production, where people paid tribute to Rome and were offered protection, etc.
You’re larger point that capitalism and christianity somehow fit together is, in my humble opinion, highly contentious. Simply looking at the Gospel we see Jesus offering critiques that I think directly challenge Capitalism’s perverse logic. Don’t sue your neighbor? Give your cloak when you’re only asked for your shirt? Pray for your enemies and those that persecute you? That’s not capitalism - in fact, I’d argue that the gospel is adverse to Capitalsm. Capitalism is fundamentally concerned with the accumulation of wealth. It wrecks ecologies. It radically alters any other social society it comes in contact with.
Anyhow…love the blog.
Grace & Peace,
JR
JR,
An ironic set of initials for one so down on capitalism [insert Dallas theme here].
Honestly, I couldn’t care less what contemporary “Marxist or non-Marxist” historians have to say today. Saying everyone of any scholarly worth agrees with you is no argument. You should know that, you’re in graduate school.
Many of my opinions are quite contentious undoubtedly. That doesn’t make them inaccurate in and of themselves. What we see in Scripture are several different types of ancient economies but the basic building blocks of capitalism are most certainly there. If capitalism didn’t appear until the 16th or 17th century, how is it Jesus is criticizing it in the Gospels? Jesus was criticizing a stagnant and rebellious covenant community of people who thought that they had a right to be called the sons and daughters of God because they were the sons of Abraham. You can say that capitalism is adverse to the Gospel all you like, but proving it is another matter. Besides, the Gospel is a matter of what the entire Bible says and not just the pithy statements you feel attracted to in the Four Gospels.
Furthermore, even if I grant that capitalism as we know it today didn’t appear until the 16th or 17th century, what does that say other than it is a product of a maturing Western Civilization that has Christianity at its center? Such a position would only serve to strengthen what I have already said. And, odd that such a theory developed and found its roots in the theological climate of the Reformation. After all, it was the Dutch Reformed that founded Manhattan where we now have Wall Street.
Maybe it’s just me… but storing up metric tons of junk for yourselves and others doesn’t really qualify as Biblical. I mean, it would be one thing is there was *any* sort of moderation, balance, or conscious thought for the witness we are required to give. Unfortunately, that’s not exactly something evanjellyfishism is able to identify, let alone practice.
Acting like Luddites or banding together in communes isn’t exactly a moderate way, either, though. I know it’s always “cool” to be a “socialist” - oooooh! He’s a socialist! But, honestly, it’s just flat-out unbiblical. So is being a greedy magnate. Yeah, I know, I probably just shattered everyone’s dreams, but hey. I can only call em as I see ‘em.
But, back to the book’s point, and Brent’s - the point is that “Merry Christmas” may as well be “Merry Obscene amounts of purchasing for the sole purpose of obscene amounts of purchasing-mas” - and is right on target. Argue whatever you want. I don’t even watch tv. I see it *everywhere*. In my evangelical extended family, in my worldly relations, and in many folks even within my church. I’m thankful that I’m too poor to be able to overindulge on Christmas - so it’s out of my hands. Because, honestly, I’m sure I could find some sort of justification for spending mass amounts of money at Christmas.
I just wish everyone was blessed the same way, because it seems as if we have become culturally impotent to resist the siren call of “buy, buy, buy!” We don’t even know what “save” means - on several levels.
Kevin,
“the fundamental understanding of what Christmas is and was”
I would argue there simply is no static meaning to Christmas. If that is true, rather than speak of origin (sing) one must speak of origins (pl) and must not fault the Puritans (or Brent ) for dealing with a more recent origin than a more distant one of which they may have been either unconcerned or unaware. A simple illustration to prove the point: It may be the case that inventor X creates a very simple version of something, but then a short time later inventor Y creates the version of that same thing which most people are familiar. It will be unclear to many which of the two should receive credit for the invention. It would be wrong, I think, to deny “inventor Y invented thus and such” because, in a meaningful sense, he did.
So I take it you would rather Brent have said something like this: “While early Christians decided to celebrate the birth of Christ on December 25th, the day was soonthereafter taken over as a pagan holiday which has now been masquerading as a Christian holy day repleat with its own mythology and steeped in both paganism and consumerism.”
Does that satisfy your historical concerns?
Adam
Adam,
Of course, if you are going to redefine what we are talking about then by all means you may say whatever you want.
If, however, Brent had just left out the word “originally”, we would have likely been good. Far be it from me to demand precision in a blog post. I’m sure it sounds inherently unreasonable but words do mean something or we have no Gospel at all.
This is not an appropriate definition of capitalism. If you remember, I objected to both extremes of rampant American materialism and its corresponding opposite error socialism. I agree that excessive spending at Christmas completely ruins the emphasis of the holiday. I am completely unsympathetic to the notion of a consumer-like Christianity that is wrapped up in the preferences of the individual.
But, there is no reason to pretend that we must throw out biblical notions of private property, free trade, just scales, and the like. Nor are we somehow cheating others by storing up an inheritance for our children. The Proverbs call that wisdom. The notion of loving your neighbor as yourself is wrapped up in these things (cf. Lev. 19) and a proper understanding of capitalism takes these things into account.
Kevin:
You said: “Furthermore, even if I grant that capitalism as we know it today didn’t appear until the 16th or 17th century, what does that say other than it is a product of a maturing Western Civilization that has Christianity at its center? Such a position would only serve to strengthen what I have already said.”
I think that would only point to the fact that whatever is going on is Western Civilization does not have Christianity at its center. Saying that somehow Christianity and Western Civilization are like two peas in a pod is historically inaccurate. As Jesus said (paraphrasing): Not all who call me “Lord, Lord” know me. If you haven’t read Jesus for President by Shane Claiborne or Myth of a Christian Nation by Greg Boyd, you might find them stimulating and challenging to your worldview. (I’m not saying they will convert you, but you might find them interesting).
At one point in your response to me you also said that notion of “free trade” somehow was biblical? I’m curious where you get that idea.
Listen - I am not trying to get in an argument with you and I’m going to stop posting after my post here. The only thing I really want to say is this : Capitalism is about a small amount of people getting the largest amount of wealth through the exploitation of a majority of people. You could look at the statistics, but I don’t have them in front of me. In other words, Capitalism is about winners and loser. Those who have everything and those who have nothing (I realize I’m being a bit extreme, but I’m just trying to highlight my point).
My readings of the Gospel, and the Bible as a whole is about just the opposite — the Gospel “Good News” is for all those who have nothing, not just spiritually, but also materially. It is good news for the social outcasts. The Gospel is an announcement of God’s abundant grace to everyone. It literally is turning everything in our world upside-down.
In turning things upside-down, I think it radically challenges the system of Capitalism. It should cause us to wonder why the IMF is promoting free trade in the “Third World” which is making countries poorer and poorer. Millions of human beings, God’s children, are living in slums across the world trying simply to get by because “free trade” and Capitalism have wrecked their lives. Bad luck did not cause millions of people to live on less than $2 a day, a system based on profit margins, surplus value, and exploitation did. Capitalism is as adverse to Christianity as it ever was.
Thankfully, God is bigger than a system. Enough of my ranting.
Grace & Peace,
JR
JR,
I have no need to read open theists or other heretics on this subject. Nor do I put much stock in Shane Claiborne’s work. You’re not talking to a Reformed Baptist, a wishy-washy uninformed evangelical, someone overly sympathetic with the leftovers of a once vibrant but often shrill Anabaptism, an Emergent progressive liberal in new clothes, or one who thinks that Christianity is more properly seen as an exercise in socialism or some other form of communal living. We likely have dramatically different understandings of the implications of the Gospel as it pertains to these and many other issues.
Your view of capitalism as you present it is deficient. Just because it is erroneously practiced on the international level by some does not make the system in and of itself wrong and the problems of the third world are decidedly more complex on a systemic level than “Oh it’s all capitalism’s fault”. That’s just flat absurd. I will grant that you are using hyperbole because after all this is a blog comment thread and not a graduate seminar but it would still be helpful to drive on the actual road of truth rather than pretend we must go off-road in order to make a point. After all, the many millions that live in poverty today because of perceived inequalities in trade lived much the same if not worse prior to the advent of capitalism. And, the notion that it is the current practice of capitalists alone who are causing problems in the third world is also equally absurd. Just look at the communist Chinese in Africa or elsewhere and how they work hand in hand in oppressing the local peoples around them. Who knew a hundred and fifty years ago when both socialism and communism were mere theories that communists could be so imperial in their designs?
I find it interesting that one way you mark capitalism above is “by dispossession of peasants from the means of subsistence (i.e. land), where laborers have nothing to sell but their own labor power” as if there is great glory to being a landed slave both to the land and to the land barons who controlled the fiefdoms of the Middle Ages and horrible injustice in allowing people the freedom to work on their own destiny in terms of economic self-sufficiency and their lives in general. Why not expand your social theories well beyond the material and bring back prima noctes? I daresay we are so free in this country, we don’t understand the danger socialism really presents to us (as if the horrors of National Socialism, the fascism of Italy, and the old Soviet/communist bloc errors were not enough to warn us).
But, your conception that Western Civilization is somehow not Christian because some in society will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven is manifestly in error and has its roots in a conception of church and state that is equally defective. It betrays the very communal aspect you are trying to emphasize in righting the world’s wrongs. In short, you can’t have your cake and eat it, too.
As to your participation in this blog - it’s not my blog but I welcome the free exchange of ideas here and elsewhere. I hope frank and open disagreement is not a barrier to anyone in discussing these things even if we wind up going off-topic. Part of thinking through the legitimacy of your own view is examining those of others.
Kevin,
Yes the definition of Christmas changes. No this does not threaten the Gospel. The former is inspired, the latter is not. I take this to be the basic summary of what Brent was getting at in the first place.
Adam
You miss my point, Adam, profoundly.
I am not afraid of working with different definitions but that is not what Brent said originally. Brent didn’t present 27 different definitions of Christmas. He presented Christmas as originating in paganism when that truly is not the case. You’re welcome to recast his words differently or perhaps at best he was being imprecise, but that doesn’t impact the veracity of what I’ve already pointed out.
To my point regarding the Gospel, words have meaning. We don’t switch the meaning of the words in the middle of a discussion to win an argument. That’s the sort of foul play that loses the whole game. When we rob words of meaning and pretend that nothing’s different, we give way to an inability to adequately communicate the truth of what we are saying. The world has already caught on to this and it is in large part why the Christian message these days is largely powerless when presented in such a fashion.
Ok, I’m not even going to pretend that I can compete in a discussion at this level. However, (here I go,) I do find it interesting that:
~St. Nicholas Day is December the 6th not even on Dec 25th; Dec. 6th is day when the Catholic church traditionally honor(ed/s) St. Nicholas by giving in kind as he freely gave to those in need. Somehow St. Nick got linked to Christmas Day on December 25th - I haven’t found that one yet, but I HAVE learned…
~The tradition of St. Nick was brought to America by Vikings, Spanish & Dutch settlers - the tradition had spread to other countries in Europe. The Puritans and Separatists did NOT bring the tradition with them, since both groups took a dim view of Saints. Obviously the tradition had morphed a bit as it spread to other countries and then to America. Ironically, since the pilgrims were not practicing the holiday, this actually allowed it to change in the hands of the immigrant celebrators, rather then keeping it intact with it’s original focus.
~St. Nick himself was “morphed” from a priest to a “dutch-like” elf much later by Washington Irving’s “Knickerbocker History of New York” in 1809 in heavily Dutch-influenced New York. His new image was further transformed and sealed by “Children’s Friend” in 1821 and “Twas the Night Before Christmas” in 1823 (and since then Santa and his posse has grown to include Rudolph, elves and the like by additional fictional works of fancy.)
~By the 1920’s Santa looked as he does today and pretty much all that was left of Saint Nick was the name. In the 1930’s Santa was permanently melded into American culture with the beginning of a long-running series of Coca-Cola ads featuring Santa Claus himself. It was no large leap from there to the (inevitable?) commercialization of Santa and Christmas.
Whereas Saint Nicholas was most definitely a real person, who by all evidence did in fact live his life by giving and loving others because of his love for God and Jesus.. and while “St. Nick” may at its very earliest point been derived from the story of this man.. “St. Nick’s” whole ‘existence’ is based on satirical and fictional tales early on, and commercialism, advertising, and Hollywood later on, and has very little (if anything at all) in common with the Saint Nicholas of the Catholic church.
While I once said the same thing, I don’t see how we (society, Christians, anybody) can make the claim that we can tell our kids Santa Claus is based on Saint Nicholas and is nice and good because it’s all about giving like St. Nick gave - when Santa has so very little basis on the original tradition. This is something I’ve struggled with/over for years and has really become quite clear with further research this year.
We’ve been celebrating Advent for at least 5 years now and it’s something that we’ve really enjoyed doing as a family,.. even though we still open presents on Christmas Day and still have a couple of secular traditions, watch a few Christmas movies with Santa in them. I make a point with my kids to start laying the foundation early on that Santa is just a symbol, a symbol for the secular Christmas, and that’s about it. While I am not Catholic and don’t condone the worshipping of saints, I do believe we can learn from others who have lived their lives well, and as such, I do include stories and books about the REAL Saint Nick during our Advent celebrations.
As far as the commercialization of Christmas, I think America will commercialize anything it can. As far as over-indulging in the name of a Christian Christmas - as if. As if the bible would condone over-indulging. Over-giving on the other hand - is there such a thing? By all means, give as much as you can to those truly in need this season. (And the next and the next - why stop at Christmas?)
(Main source for St Nick history/info: http://www.stnicholascenter.org/)
[...] I penned the majority of this article in a comment on this post, which obviously then inspired the one you just read. If you enjoyed this post, make sure you [...]
[...] I penned the majority of this article in a comment on this post, which obviously then inspired the one you just [...]