The Reason for the Season

I'm sure you've all heard the phrase, "Jesus is the reason for the season," and most of us probably give lip service in support of the sentiment if not the pithy phrasing, but this year, I've begun to wonder if that is true.

I watched several Christmas specials this month on the origins of various traditions surrounding Christmas, and I realized that most of them have little if anything to do with the birth of Christ and more to do with the pagan rituals that were already being celebrated at the end of the year, for example, the Roman Saturnalia, the northern European Yule, and the pagan Winter Solstice. The Saturnalia, the festival to honor the god Saturn, the father of Jupiter, was celebrated from December 17 to the 23rd. Since Saturn was the god of farming, evergreen trees were cut down and displayed in his honor, and families exchanged gifts. Yule is a sabbat that was celebrated by Germanic pagans to commemorate the winter solstice, and the celebration included eating ham, hanging boughs of holly and misteltoe, and of course the burning of the Yule log.

Obviously most of us are not paying homage to Saturn or any pagan deity when we engage in such activities. They've become traditions associated with the season, and as they bring people together and cause joy, I say God bless them. But they have nothing to do with Jesus. Neither does Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer, Frosty the Snowman, Garfield, Scrooge, or the Grinch, and it just wouldn't be Christmas without them.

What do we as Christians do with them then? Do they get in the way of the true meaning of the season? Or, as I'm beginning to think, should we just admit that Jesus is not entirely the reason for the season and get on with the party?

I'm not advocating taking Christ out of Christmas or ignoring an opportunity to celebrate his birth. In fact, Christine and I are resolving this next year to follow the Church calendar and commemorate Advent as it has traditionally been observed and to celebrate Christmas Day as the beginning of the festivities, not the end. But within that, we will probably eat ham, decorate a Christmas tree, and maybe do some kissing under the mistletoe, and while doing so, probably think about Baby Jesus very little.

I guess what I really want to say is that for those of us in the Kingdom of God, Jesus is the reason we can enjoy anything, so let's recognize that and not feel guilty for indulging in excess and enjoying the giving and receiving of gifts. Let's enjoy the liturgy as well as the revelry and not feel as if one is more important than the other.

So now, as Herb says, "Let's Wassail!"

The Thought Police Strike Again

Evan 24/7, nee Evan Is Handsome, is no more, the victim of Evangelical anti-intellectualism. Check out Evan's new blog, The Developing Diversity.

Gays Are Gross?

Sometimes I think that I have become too tolerant and that I should take more of a hardline stance against sin, but then I read something like this and I'm reminded why I choose to err on the side of tolerance.

My mom reads a blog called Thinklings, and when they are discussing a topic she knows I'd find interesting, she sends me a link. I have since added the link to my favorites, and I check in every once in a while. When I've posted, however, I've been disappointed by the responses. But when I followed a link to this post about the upcoming movie Brokeback Mountain, I had to speak up.

The author predicts that the film will be a box-office failure because of what he calls "the yuck factor." He writes, "For all of our modern cultural 'enlightenment,' and despite the pervasiveness of gay characters and stories all over American media, and regardless of the success of shows like 'Will & Grace' and 'Queer Eye,' by and large Americans -- blue state, red state, Christian and non -- innately find homosexuality repulsive."

This is an insightful and probably accurate insight into modern American sensibilities. But not content to describe the cultural attitudes he observes, the author claims that they are objective universal feelings. "It's part of our makeup. It's biological, it's conscience-born, it's part of the imago dei. It's part of a "moral aesthetic" most everyone bears latent. To be blunt, we know anal sex is gross, and we especially know anal sex between men is repulsive."

I wanted to comment, but the author had disabled comments because he was receiving many personal attacks, so I commented on the blog. This is how the conversation progressed (or degressed, as you will see).

Me: It’s part of the imago dei to find sinners gross?

Response: No. It’s a reflection of the imago dei to find someone shoving something up your butt gross. Comprendes?

Me: These words of Jesus seem especially appropriate here.
“What goes into a man’s mouth does not make him ‘unclean,’ but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him ‘unclean.’”
Jesus seems much more repulsed by those who judge others with a holier-than-thou mentality than by the homosexuality that was rampant in Rome in the first century.

At this point a homosexual man shared his story, and another blogger told him that his problem was with God.

Me: When God’s representatives on earth act like their sin doesn’t stink, I think it’s safe to say that they are part of the problem. But nice try attempting to deflect the problem onto God.

Response: Buddy, no one here’s done that. If you actually read the Cinema Veritas thread, you’d see that I call myself a “lying, thieving, lustful moron.” I cop to my own sins and say that I expect to find people with same-sex attraction in heaven because if God can let someone like me in, he’s gotta let a whole lot of others in too.
In fact, if you bothered to read that thread, you’d see that out of all of the people talking there, the only who admitted their sin is ME.
You can make this about judgment if you want, about condemnation if you want. That’s so ho-hum.
You’ve registered your perturbation. If you’ve got nothing else, move along.
Btw, in response to that post, I’ve received dozens of insulting comments, deleted lots of profane condemnation of me and accusations against my manhood/sexuality/parents, and now that they’re following me over into my other blogs, I’m having to stay on top of vulgar troll-droppings on Mysterium Tremendum and Shizuka Blog. In one of the blogs from which these folks are coming, they’re discussing in a comment thread how best to flood my e-mail inbox with gay p()rn.
So if you’re looking to talk to people about controlling their anger and judgment and lashing out, I suggest you’re looking in the wrong direction.

Me: I did actually read your post, but I did not muddle through the hundred+ replies, as I’m sure many did not. In the actual post, all you do is point the finger.
I’m not flooding your mailbox with porn or questioning your own sexual orientation or parentage. I’m saying that your post seems to take the culturally formed opinions of you and yours and not only claim they are universals, but to arrogantly equate them with the imago dei while the tone of your post runs completely counter to the attitude of the true embodiment of the imago dei, Jesus Christ, who never accused sinners of being gross. But you seem to think you’re above reproach, so I will, as you said, move along.
And if anything is ho-hum, it’s Christian gay bashing.

I didn't really move along, and since his reply is addressed to me, I apparently wasn't expected to.

Response: Yes, Buddy, as we all know, Jesus never preached against sin.
Every time you comment here it’s on stuff that irks you, about stuff you think you need to correct us on. Sort of a pot/kettle, plank/speck situation, if you ask me. I’ve already acknowledged my own failings and do so often in this space and in my others. I never said I’m speaking from a place of personal perfection. Of the two of us, only one is acting like he’s the one who’s above reproach, and it’s not me.
In any event, thanks for moving on.

I know I can be offensive when addressing smug Christians who think they have everything figured out, and I don't apologize for that. I see it as part of following Christ, who was incredibly offensive when addressing the Pharisees. But I thought I was restrained here, and I don't understand the backlash.

But what I even more don't understand is how someone could, in the name of embodying the imago dei, act in a way that is so un-Christlike and respond so defensively when called on it. I never denied that Jesus preached against sinners, and I never defended homosexuality. But Christ never called homosexuals disgusting or degenerate, and I see no basis for Christians to do so.

So so if I'm a kettle, call me black, and if I have a plank in my eye, point it out, I have always invited it, but don't expect me to be silent when people who claim to be following Christ behave like those he preached against.