This page was created on April 1, 2004
This page was last updated on June 1, 2005

It’s tempting to treat this month’s topic purely as an “in-house” Christian issue. It is intriguing how some believers complain that Christmas and Easter have become commercial and that we have lost the “Reason for the Season.”

I don’t know that unbelievers, though, care much about the dualistic aspect of these two holidays. For some, it is Christianity that has ruined the “true” meaning of the holidays. So as far as these two holidays go, it is not surprising that the public celebration has degenerated into self-indulgent feasts.

From an in-house perspective, though, Christmas and Easter are two days that the church has chosen to celebrate two real events in history: the birth and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Sure, they picked pagan holidays for days of observance, but they only did that to infuse their culture with the incredible story of the gospel. It was their way of contextualizing their story in order that pagans might understand the events.

And I believe herein lies the real issue of this article. Regina wrote, “If Christians believe in the regeneration of souls, why not the regeneration of culture?” I believe this to be a very fair question, and one the church must take seriously. There seems to be no question that the gospel (God’s story) intends to do just that -- but as a church, what role do we play? The church has always struggled with being in the world and not of it, with engaging culture without becoming just like the culture. Syncretism and separatism often appear the only two avenues the church has; however, the gospel continually must challenge our culture and the church with its truth, and its ethos. Molding the culture’s story with God’s can be a tricky game, and all too often the church has either become so far removed that it has become irrelevant, or it has rubber-stamped the culture in a way that has at times aligned it with the likes of the Third Reich.

Obviously, I have no intention of comparing Nazis with the Easter Bunny; but I hope the point is understood. From a Christian point of view, a holiday such as Christmas and Easter can be celebrated with vigor as we maintain alliance with the scriptures -- while, at the same time, downplaying the mythology the culture has attached to it.

C.S. Lewis argued that mythology is not fanciful or even untrue, but that it “transcends thought”. He indicated that “Christianity is a myth which is also a fact.” With that definition of a myth in mind I have no problem with stories that point us to a larger, eternal reality. My problem is with stories that do the opposite: leave us stranded in our finiteness. A story of St. Nick may remind us of giving, but I must say it usually inspires us not to give, but to receive.

I think there may be a good reason why a “joyous” time like Christmas may be the most depressing time of the year for many Americans. We’ve literally exchanged the truth for a fib, and we’re okay with that. It doesn’t deliver the goods the hype promises. But it makes us feel all right, temporarily -- and even helps discipline our kids for at least a couple of months.

How can we honestly move toward a redeemed culture with myths no more far-sighted than the end of our noses?

Regeneration of culture begins in truth. We have to be serious about that, and demonstrate that we’re serious about that. And for Christians, truth begins with Christ, not with furthering pagan (or fanciful) illusions. Now, I am certainly not advocating the eradication of Santa Claus, nor the mitigation of mythology and good story; but confusing my children with half-truths and lies seems a bit duplicitous. Most skeptics of Christianity that I know equate the Christian story with fanciful stories of Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, thus "proving" the Christian story wrong. How do I explain to a six year old -- or an adult atheist -- that the lie I teach children is not the same as what I teach them about Christ or God?

Bah Christmas, or Merry Humbug -- whatever?

Although Regina and Mike both approach the discussion of these holidays from different angles, they appear to agree that there are two distinct interpretations of these holidays. As a result, it seems that both tend to play these interpretations against each other, looking at their relative merits and faults in the hopes of choosing an ultimate victor. But what if there isn’t a victor? Just as one’s level of spirituality can be described on a sliding scale, I would suggest that these holidays present a broad spectrum of characteristics that allow for a multitude of interpretations. It seems that those eager to share their message (like, say, Christians) should see this spectrum as a means of promoting accessibility rather than as an adversary which threatens their cause. For example, the Easter Bunny presents an avenue to establish story-telling familiarity with children who may not yet have reached a cognitive stage where they are ready to digest crucifixion and resurrection. For adults, by comparison, it is completely appropriate to join one’s family at a Christmas Eve service even if one does not regularly attend church. On the opposite end of the spectrum, if you need to take a spiritual breather, just pop in a copy of Rudolph. You may find it more than just crass propaganda for the North Pole.

So, how can we reconcile ourselves with this co-existence? Regina brought up something that interested me. The implementation of her “both/and” solution is very similar to the financial planning axiom “pay yourself first”. That is, do what is important to you and your future first. Then, feel free to follow it up with what you see as more frivolous endeavors, knowing that you’ve established a firm foundation. Regina’s tenet might be “pay your soul first”. This philosophy also implies that people, not advertising executives and retailers, control their actions and beliefs. I couldn’t agree more. Focusing on the addictive nature of Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny seems more like an excuse than an argument. It has become far too convenient to blame the Big Mac instead of accepting responsibility, establishing priorities, and striking a balance.

As for responsibility, Mike’s point regarding the church’s rubber-stamping of society and how that relates to demonstrating how serious the church is about “truth” struck a chord with me. As someone who does not frequently watch Christian programming on TV, I was somewhat conflicted when I recently watched a supposed Christian show that ambiguously endorsed relations between unmarried partners rather than offering guidance and alternatives. Thankfully, I was looking for entertainment rather than attempting to reconcile spiritual doctrines. But what of those who see all Christian programming as an extension of The Word? One could argue that such messages are insidious rather than constructive. Then again, weaving such shows into a tapestry of Christian programming does promote accessibility. Perhaps some of the other messages will sink in as well, even though the “truth” has been somewhat blurred or defamed. After all, it seems that people should accept responsibility for separating entertainment from dogma.

In 2 Corinthians, the Apostle Paul speaks of Christianity as "the ministry of reconciliation."⁵ By this, he means that the central story of the faith is the reconciliation of Man to God through the blood of His Son, Jesus. Christianity, then, is the ministry of reconciliation because all who claim the name of Christ are ministers -- literally, servants in the Greek -- of God's specific conciliatory purpose.

But Christianity is not only the ministry of reconciliation -- it is the ministry of all things godly. One of the other theological terms applied to the act of Jesus' death on the cross is redemption. In conceiving Hollywood Jesus, David Bruce understood that Christianity is also the ministry of redemption -- and in particular, it is the redemptive hope for our culture: not through legislation, stone-throwing or critical negativity, but through showing us the godly things already embedded in our culture. For God reveals Himself through all that He has created, even the things that we may not particularly like.

After Eden is dedicated to this redemptive vision. We believe, as G.K. Chesteron put it, that "humanity is not incidentally engaged, but eternally and systematically engaged, in throwing gold into the gutter and diamonds into the sea."⁶ That's not a reality we endorse. We'd like to help salvage the gold from the gutter, and rescue the diamonds from the sea.

Mike Gunn is a pastor at Harambee Church in Tukwila, Washington, and was cofounder of Mars Hill Church in Seattle.

Regina Doman is a writer, the author of the young adult novel The Shadow of the Bear and other modern stories based on fairy tales; she was also an editor for the late journal Caelum et Terra.

Editor Greg Wright is a writer and ordained minister of the dramatic arts. He is a contributing editor for Hollywood Jesus, and is author of Tolkien in Perspective: Sifting the Gold from the Glitter.

Editor Jenn Wright is a writer with degrees in literature and theology. She will be co-writing the Narnia coverage for Hollywood Jesus, which will be debuting the summer of 2004 in anticipation of the first movie's 2005 release.

The Devil's Advocate is a composite personality of our consultants and editorial staff. He may look like someone you know -- and probably thinks like a lot of them.

Shaw
On Holidays

A perpetual holiday is a good working definition of hell.¹

Mr. Rogers
On Holiday Tales

I like to compare the holiday season with the way a child listens to a favorite story. The pleasure is in the familiar way the story begins, the anticipation of familiar turns it takes, the familiar moments of suspense, and the familiar climax and ending.²

Emerson
On Celebrating

You will think me very pedantic, gentlemen, but holiday though it may be, I have not the smallest interest in any holiday, except as it celebrates real and not pretended joys.³

Shakespeare
On Being in the Mood

Come, woo me, woo me; for now I am in a holiday humor, and like enough to consent.⁴

Chesterton
On Perception

It is a strange thing that many truly spiritual men... have actually spent some hours in speculating upon the precise location of the Garden of Eden. Most probably we are in Eden still. It is only our eyes that have changed.⁷