New Way To Proclaim CHRIST-mas

For years, I have critized how our culture has commercialized Christmas. I shudder at the introduction of Christmas ornaments, decorations, and gift-giving ideas weeks before Halloween. I have worked diligently to communicate a better way to celebrate Christmas to churches I have served.

This week, I was alerted to a new company that seeks to provide the perfect solution to this dilemma by a member of our church. She had seen reference to www.bosscreations.net on The Colbert Report. According to their website:

The Christian holiday, Christmas, is intended to celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ. However, over the years the decorations and celebrations for this holiday have become increasingly commercial and unrelated to Christ. Unfortunately, the holiday has become less about Jesus and more about gifts and Santa Claus.

At Boss Creations, it is our mission to help you bring the Word of God into your home during the Christian holiday seasons. We hope that you will share the Word with your family and friends and that you will begin new holiday traditions with Christ as the central figure.

In recent years, our Christmas holiday has been made to become a generic holiday for all religions with many being forced to call it a "Holiday" season instead of Christmas season. We, as Christians, must take a stand and rescue our religious holiday. We at Boss Creations believe that one way to do this is to decorate with more Christian-themed holiday decorations including The CHRIST-mas Tree.

We have figured a way to enhance the tradition of decorating a tree for Jesus at Christmas by adding a cross that acts as a reminder of Him. By changing our tree to include a cross, we are making a statement that we want to keep our Christmas holiday! Our new tree and decorations ideas will not only help to enhance our celebration of the Christmas holiday but will help to enlighten those who may decorate for Christmas but may not be "Christians."

I would encourage you to visit their web-site to see their collection, including their CHRIST-mas tree.

This leads me to wonder. Are our options for the celebration of Christmas limited to excessive consumer spending or the use of evangelistic messages in our decorations? Is the use of such decorations the only way - or the best way - to honor Christ at Christmas?

This would certainly qualify as another battle in the War on Christmas, so what do you think? Would you use such a tree or do you have another way to honor Jesus the Christ at Christmas?

A New Front in the 'War On Christmas'

Rabbi Brad Hirschfield in his blog on Belief Net referenced an article in Haaretz, an Israeli newspaper. The article, written by Morten Bethelsen, can be found at: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1135512.html.

Seems that a group in Israel, the Lobby For Jewish Values, has been distributing fliers condemning the celebration of Christmas by Israeli Jews and calling for a boycott of restaurants and hotels that put up Christmas trees and use Christian symbols. Further, this group is trying to have the kashrut certification, the kosher certificate, of restaurants that utilize Christmas decorations. This, of course, would have a devastating affect on a restaurant in Israel.

Quoting from the fliers, The people of Israel have given their soul over the years in order to maintain the values of the Torah of Israel and the Jewish identity. You should also continue to follow this path of the Jewish people's tradition and not give in to the clownish atmosphere of the end of the civil year. And certainly not help those businesses that sell or put up the foolish symbols of Christianity.

What the foolish symbols are is not defined, but the intent of the warning is quite clear. These people believe that one cannot be a good Jew and have anything to do with Christmas. In this way, they are the mirror image of the conservative Christians in America who say that one cannot be a good Christian and wish someone a "Happy Holiday" instead of "Merry Christmas."

Again, from the Haaretz article, Samuel Scott, working at the Refuah Institute, raises this issue: The Jewish state wants to be two things: a Jewish state and a free, democratic state. But what is the solution when these competing priorities conflict? If all Israelis start celebrating Christmas (either as Christians or as secularized revelers), then it will arguably no longer be a Jewish state. If the government bans everyone from having anything to do with the holiday, then it will no longer be a free state.

Do those conservative Christians in our country believe that, if people quit saying "Merry Christmas", America will somehow lose some status as a Christian nation? And, what do we do with the reality of America as a country that welcomes all people of any faith or no faith? Do we want to force all of them to say "Merry Christmas" or else?

What do you think?

What qualities would you demand in an elected official?

Most of us, even in our most cynical moments, would hope that the people for whom we vote to represent us on school boards, city councils, state senates, or in Washington would be honest, fair, and concerned about their constituents. In North Carolina, according to the state constitution, such a person must also believe in God. The precise wording, as quoted in the Post article written by David Waters, is: Article 6, section 8 of the North Carolina constitution states: "The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God."

In a story carried by both the NY Times and the Washinmgton Post, we learn that Cecil Bothwell was elected to serve on the Asheville City Council, placing third in a six person field. Unfortunately for him, his political opponents raised the specter of his disqualification for office based on the state constitution. Unfortunately for them, the US Constitution trumps the state wording by affirming: "No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Also, unfortunately for Mr. Bothwell's opponents, he has affirmed that the exact wording of the North Carolina constitution wouldn't apply to him anyway. "I am not 'an avowed atheist.' . . . I don't 'deny the being of Almighty God.' I simply consider the question of denial or acceptance irrelevant."

So, do you think the NC provision should remain in force? Or, do you think that such a formal and official religious test for public office should be swept aside?

Are you still Christian or any other faith?

With the spate of aggressive campaigns deriding people of faith and the number of scandals relating to the church, an important question to consider is: If you are a person of faith, why do you still give credence to that faith. Diana Butler Bass, in an interview about her book, A People's History of Christianity, approached that question. This can be found in its entirety at the Religious Dispatches site, http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/mediaculture/1466/.

The interview opened with this question and answer:
What inspired you to write A People's History of Christianity? What sparked your interest?
A conversation with a friend prompted the writing of A People’s History. About a dozen years ago, she quizzed me as to why I was still a Christian. Although I actually tried to avoid answering her, I eventually realized that I had remained a Christian largely because I am held in faith by history—the past provides me with spiritual memory and a community that exists through time. Many people, of course, reject Christianity on the basis of its history. Of course, Christians have committed much historical mischief and done outright evil things. But that’s not the whole story. There’s much in the tradition to be both admirable and imitated. So, I decided to write “the other side of the story,” the sort of history that enables me to stay Christian.

So, if you are a person of faith, why are you still one? If you are not a person of faith, why have you maintained that resistance to faith?

Religious News Part II

The second item Joshua sent me reported on criticisms of President Obama for bumping the Charlie Brown Christmas Special from network TV with a side of innuendo about the President supposedly being a Muslim.

According to an article in the Memphis Commercial Appeal [ http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2009/12/president_obama_is_a_muslim_te.html with a link there to the original article written by Mark Memmott, Russell Wiseman], the mayor of Arlington, Tennessee posted the following on his Facebook page -
"Ok, so, this is total crap, we sit the kids down to watch 'The Charlie Brown Christmas Special' and our muslim president is there, what a load.....try to convince me that wasn't done on purpose. Ask the man if he believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and he will give you a 10 minute disertation (sic) about it....w...hen the answer should simply be 'yes'...."

The Commercial Appeal reporter notes that Glenn Beck also chimes in on the crtiticisms of the President for pre-empting Charlie Brown. Though, as I looked at the original article, Beck uses a decidedly different and more cutting approach.

Isn't it wonderful that people who do not support President Obama can continue to use baseless charges - President Obama is a Muslim; President Obama is not a US citizen; etc. - as legitimate ways to voice their criticism of the administration? I wonder how bumping the Charlie Brown Christmas Special can be equated with anti-Christian sentiment? True, Linus does quote from Luke 2, but the central theme of the show revolves around a forlorn Christmas tree, rescued by Charlie Brown, not anything about the gospel message.

Religious News

My son, Joshua, sent me links to two pieces of news relating to religion.

First, from Foreign Policy magazine, is a critique of New Atheism. New atheism is distinguished from regular old atheism by its militant stance against religion. No longer content to disbelieve, the proponents of New Atheism call for an active campaign to discredit religion and adherents of religion. The piece, written by Robert Wright, can be found at: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/11/30/the_anti_god_squad?page=0,1.

The concluding paragraphs of the piece follow:

And there's a subtle but potent sense in which New Atheism can steer foreign policy to the right. Axiomatic to New Atheism is that religion is not just factually wrong, but the root of evil, which suggests that other proposed root causes of the sort typically stressed on the left aren't really the problem. Sam Harris, in discussing terrorism, wholly dismisses such contributing factors as "the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza," "the collusion of Western powers with corrupt dictatorships," and "the endemic poverty and lack of economic opportunity that now plague the Arab world." The problem, Harris states, is religion, period.

Most New Atheists aren't expressly right wing, but even so their discounting of the material causes of Islamist radicalism can be "objectively" right wing (as in George Orwell's assertion that pacifists were "objectively pro-fascist" regardless of their views about fascism).

Dawkins, for example, has written that if there were no religion then there would be "no Israeli/Palestinian wars." This view is wrong -- the conflict started as an essentially secular argument over land -- but it's popular among parts of the U.S. and Israeli right. The reason is its suggestion that there's no point in, say, removing Israeli settlements so long as the toxin of religion is in the air.
All the great religions have shown time and again that they're capable of tolerance and civility when their adherents don't feel threatened or disrespected. At the same time, as some New Atheists have now shown, you don't have to believe in God to exhibit intolerance and incivility.

Maybe this is the New Atheists' biggest problem: As living proof that religion isn't a prerequisite for divisive fundamentalism, they are walking rebuttals to their own ideology.

It seems as if Dawkins, Harris, et al are guilty of making religion the scapegoat for all the problems of the world. Do you buy what they are selling?

Is Modernist Religion Doomed?

Father Longenecker, an Anglican convert to Catholocism who is serving a parish in South Carolina, asserts that modernist religion is doomed. Interested readers can read the entire post at: http://gkupsidedown.blogspot.com/2009/11/why-modernist-christianity-will-die.html.

His 10 reasons why he believes this is so include:
-- Modernists deny supernaturalism and therefore they are not really religious.
-- Modernism is essentially individualist and not communal. Each person makes up his own mind about matters.
-- Modernism is historically revisionist.
-- Modernists contracept and abort. They don't have enough children to train up in their religion, and those children they do have are often taught that freedom of choice is a higher virtue than commitment or duty in religion.
-- Modernists allow for moral degeneracy and that saps the strength out of real religion.
-- Modernists aren't actually much fun.
-- Modernists are dull. They've so little imagination and are so literal about everything. They do not rejoice over the seeming absurdity of religion.
I disagree with several of his points, and, in fact, think that his analysis could just as easily apply to his brand of "real" religion. But, what do you think?

Between Cox proclaiming the failure of fundamentalist and Longenecker the doom of modernism, who do you think is more accurate?