Since you brought it up
There has been a lot of talk in the local blogosphere about the celebration of Christmas and the alleged secularization of the holiday via the apostasy of holding "holiday" parties.
For a real defense of the true meaning of Christmas against the secular "Santa Claus" version I commend this post by Lutheran pastor, Paul T. Cain.
Here is my favorite part,
"The point is, the original Santa Claus (St. Nicholos of Myra) was someone who flew off the handle when he heard someone minimizing Christ. Perhaps we can battle our culture's increasingly Christ-less Christmas by enlisting Santa in his original cause. The poor girls' stockings have become part of our Christmas imagery. So should the St. Nicholas slap. Not a violent hit of the kind that got the good bishop in trouble, just a gentle, admonitory tap on the cheek. This should be reserved not for out-and-out nonbelievers, but for heretics (that is, people in the church who deny its teachings), Christians who forget about Jesus, and people who try to take Christ out of Christmas. This will take a little tweaking of the mythology. Santa and his elves live at the North Pole where they compile a list of who is naughty, who is nice, and who is Nicean. "
Labels: Christmas, lutheranism
posted by Greg Kline @ 7:27 AM
4 comments
4 Comments:
"...but for heretics."
Please forgive this blunt observation from a lapsed Roman Catholic, but the overwhelming majority of Christendom past and present considers as heretics Pastor Cain and all followers of the anti-semite and advocate of murder Martin Luther, may that name be blotted out.
Of course, most of Christendom might hypothetically be wrong. But if not, who slaps whom?
Bruce,
Your lapse is showing. First, protestentism is not viewed as heretical by an "overwhelming majority of Christendom" even the modern Catholic church.
The heretics referred to by the good pastor are those who deny the divinity of Christ (i.e. refuse to profess their faith as expressed by the council of Nicea). The "overwhelming majority of Christendom" including the Catholic church agree on these central tenants.
Nice effort at the old secular progressive argument that disputes among sects belie the truth of any belief.
Greg,
I don't mind the secularization of Christmas. The simple fact that is a federal holiday makes it a secular holiday, albeit with a religious name. And there's the rub.
Those more ignorant that me continue to see religion in the holiday's name. And so in an attempt to prove that they know something of the Constitution, they pay homage to the Etablishment clause by replacing "Christmas" with "Holiday."
I guess it gives your position more weight if you can say that its actions are proscribed by the Constitution. "The Young Republicans shall Name no Fete respecting the establishment of any religion..."
So this is my real concern. That conservatives are falling for the liberals' interpretation of the Constitution and for what constitutes polite social intercourse.
Mike,
God love you I don't get you sometimes.
I thought your concern was "defending the culture" not a pre-Lemon v. Kurtz view of the establishment clause. I happen to agree with you on both counts, by the way.
But your continuing to press this naming of the YR "holiday" party as some egregious abandonment of principle is stretching the point to absurdity.
My post was intended to inject some real debate on what is a legitimate topic of discussion, the secular effort to remove Christ from Christmas.
The federal government cannot make Christmas a secular holiday. You would give that point away but chastise (crucify?) Brian.
For the record, when I was President we had Christmas parties but the world is not coming to an end.
I expect to see you tomorrow night given your deep interest in what the YR's are (or should be) doing.
Post a Comment
<< Home