In an email regarding my previous post, my fellow Cliopatriarch Jonathan Dresner writes:
Is it at all ironic that your favorite Christmas music was produced by a Jew conducting a choir of a sect some people don’t see as Christian?
Well, Jonathan has a point. I haven’t posted much about Mormons (though again, I commend the blogs of Russell Fox and Feminist Mormon Housewives.) I do tend to be enthusiastically welcoming to the missionaries who come to my door. I remember a few years ago, not long after I came to Christ, two earnest young "elders" appeared at my townhouse door. I invited them in, offered them orange juice, and had a nice discussion with them. It was brief, but I felt very compelled to tell them that though I was quite happy in my church, I did want them to know that I thought that they (Mormons) were Christians, and I apologized on behalf of evangelicals everywhere who had told them otherwise. They were very nice. Not long thereafter, two young women ("sisters") in long dresses appeared at the door. I offered them bottled water,and repeated my little spiel. They nodded politely and moved on. I felt very inclusive.
Anyhow, this post is actually in response to this comment from Zuzu:
You mentioned that you observe Advent now that you’re a Christian, yet you also mention celebrating Christmas a certain way as a child, which makes me think that you were raised Christian.
This is a particular usage that I’ve been hearing, or at least noticing, in the past several years, one which I find perplexing. After all, I was raised Catholic; I thought we were the Famous Original (Original Famous?) Christians. And yet I hear from people I presume are evangelicals that "You’re not Christian because you’re Catholic."
My mother bequeathed to me a passion for all things Christmas. My mother is also a firm non-believer. (She read Bertrand Russell in college and that did it.) For us, Christmas was about lights, about carols, about gifts, about chocolate, and of course, the tree. I was raised to be passionate about Christmas trees. I still am passionate about Christmas trees.
As a child and indeed, even as a Christian adult, "Christmas" is the tree. We are a "Douglas fir with small white non-blinking lights" family. In my childhood, one knew of families with noble firs and colored lights (or, worst of all, flocked trees), but it was understood that they were Not Our Kind of People (NOKOP). One of my cousins actually married a woman from a colored light family, and this was considered far more controversial than a mere interracial union.
My mother’s Christmas tree is a veritable work of art, with well over 1000 ornaments and seven or eight strands of lights. My own efforts have been more modest in recent years, but as my mother ages, her trees get smaller and mine get larger. (Amateur psychologists, hold your fire.) I had five strands of lights last year, and might go for six in 2004. My trees are usually about 6′5" to 7′0", though I may soon attempt taller. Though I have found none, I still hope to have chinchilla-themed Christmas ornaments; if anyone has seen such on the ‘net, let me know!
Christmas in my father’s family revolves around the Feast of St. Nicolas on December 6 ("Nicolo", as Austrians call it.) This involves presents, food, small devils and a miniature bishop. When my parents married, "Nicolo" became part of our Christmas life.
I’m not going to get into the tiresome "Catholic/Christian" argument. I’m always amazed by how many folks see these as an authentic dyad. In my ancient history classes, we always do remedial work around the issue. Tangentially, one of my students once asked me if "catholic" had anything do with "alcoholic"; she had looked at the last five letters and were convinced that a relationship had to exist. Addicted to cats, perhaps?
A Clarification: As a Jew, I have no strong opinion on Mormons as Christians: they certainly come from that tradition and share a great deal of it, but I can understand Christians who find the Mormon revelations (there really are new revelations involved) and theology (which is pretty dramatic and distinct) too much to comfortably fit in the tradition. The analogy to Jews for Jesus comes up sometimes: allowing someone to define themselves is all very well and good, but sometimes two different groups define themselves as the same thing in mutually contradictory ways.
Absolutely, Jonathan. I wouldn’t have printed your light-hearted query if I suspected there was the slightest drop of anti-LDS sentiment within it.
On the other hand, my favorite Christian bookstore — the one at Fuller Seminary here in Pasadena — still stocks books on Mormonism under “cults.”
Try this link!
http://www.cafepress.com/shop/christmas/browse/Ntk-All_N-20373110+1271_Ne-1160_nr-1
Oh my. Hmmm. Thanks, jenell — I am wondering how my fiancee will feel about the Jesus ornament with the little chins crawling all over the name…
http://www.cafepress.com/shop/christmas/browse/N-20373110+1271_Ntk-All_pv-chinchillapet.13945815_Ne-1160_nr-1?zoom=yes#zoom
Yes, I also grew up with the non-Christian Christmas. And I loved it and it was always very meaningful for me. The last couple years I’ve found myself wishing I could fold church into Christmas. Going to a Christmas Eve vigil and then the celebration in the morning sounds awesome. But since I’m always visiting my family in the East for Christmas, it would mean leaving them to go to a church full of strangers, which doesn’t seem right. I hope someday I’ll work it out though.
Cat-holic! that describes a lot of us (picking cat hair off navy blue slacks).
Hugo, speaking as a former missionary, I thank you for your inclusiveness. That was very decent of you; I hope I always respond to Jehovah’s Witnesses and other proselytizers who come to my door today with the same sort sympathy and courtesy you showed those elders and sisters; the sort of response that, when I was on the receiving end of such, would brighten my whole week.
(And Jonathan, for what it’s worth, I agree with you; while the “anti-Christian cult” label is tiring and insulting, more than a few Mormons are, I think, at the same time perhaps somewhat hypersensitive to the very legitimate “are Mormons Christian?” question.)
As for the Christmas tree Hugo, I’m afraid we’ve had to go artificial, due to my oldest daughter’s allergies. I hold out hope for someday discovering that she isn’t, in fact, allergic to all conifers; I’d dearly like, once we’re permanently settled, to find some Christmas tree farm which sells blue spruces and cut one of our own every year. My father’s parents always put up a blue spruce, decorated with blue and white lights; we’d gather at grandma’s house every Christmas eve for a family talent show and nativity pageant put on by the grandkids, and her tree is a beautiful part of that memory.
It was always fairly petite though; never over 6 ft., I’m sure. One year, when I was in high school, and we lived in a home with an open two-story living room, my dad got us a 13ft. pine tree for Christmas. We had to take out the sliding glass doors to get it inside, and had to lash the upper branches to the fireplace to keep it from falling over. Mom was certain it was going to fall and kill someone. Ah, good times.
My mother bequeathed to me a passion for all things Christmas. My mother is also a firm non-believer.
Hello.
It sounds like your dear mother is one of the best persons from whom to learn about Christmas and, indeed, about Jesus Himself.
(She read Bertrand Russell in college and that did it.)
YMMV. I read Bertrand Russell in college and I felt my faith to be even stronger after the experience. Nevertheless, perhaps reading Mr. Russell’s writing was just the tip of the iceberg. In any event, you can learn all manner of things about Christ from the mother you call a “non-believer.” Actually, I’m quite confident that she’s a believer. She just believes in a different way. May she always know her blessing and be happy.
For us, Christmas was about lights, about carols, about gifts, about chocolate, and of course, the tree.
Indeed. Christmas is about all of these things.
As a child and indeed, even as a Christian adult, “Christmas” is the tree.
It’s interesting that you appear to draw a distinction between a “child” and a “Christian adult.”
We are a “Douglas fir with small white non-blinking lights” family. In my childhood, one knew of families with noble firs and colored lights (or, worst of all, flocked trees), but it was understood that they were Not Our Kind of People (NOKOP). One of my cousins actually married a woman from a colored light family, and this was considered far more controversial than a mere interracial union.
Sounds like people with WAY too much time on their hands. :)
My mother’s Christmas tree is a veritable work of art, with well over 1000 ornaments and seven or eight strands of lights.
Please post photos, if you can. It sounds like quite an impressive decoration.
Though I have found none, I still hope to have chinchilla-themed Christmas ornaments; if anyone has seen such on the ‘net, let me know!
Here’s one:
http://www.cafepress.com/chinchillapet/19187
I’m not going to get into the tiresome “Catholic/Christian” argument.
Good, because there’s really no good argument worth happening about it.
I’m always amazed by how many folks see these as an authentic dyad.
What they see is a way to justify their own refusal to let go of some very un-Christlike prejudices.
In my ancient history classes, we always do remedial work around the issue. Tangentially, one of my students once asked me if “catholic” had anything do with “alcoholic”; she had looked at the last five letters and were convinced that a relationship had to exist.
Please tell me this was not a college student.
Jeff JP
Oh, Hugo, Hugo.
I’m so disappointed.
I asked you a legitimate question (actually, a couple). I understand more about how Christmas has become a secular holiday (I just finished “The Namesake,” by Jhumpa Lahiri, which features an immigrant Indian family who embraces secular Christmas as a way of assimilating, even without believing in Christ.
But. I don’t get how someone at least nominally, and currently, Christian can make distinctions. Exactly what I asked was how “Christians,” whoever they may be (and I really, honestly don’t know whoever they may be) can exclude Catholics from their definition of “Christian.” I remember noticing a sign on a (presumably) Baptist church in Brooklyn stating that this was a “Bible-believing Church” and being baffled that any church that considered itself tethered to either the Old or New Testaments would consider itself NOT a “Bible-believing Church.”
I mean, if’n you got a coherent ideology/justification, please do articulate. If’n you don’t, well, what’s your basis?
I should also add that I found your blog through Ampersand’s, and I find both yours and his models of really awesome cogent and intelligent thought on religion and SSM issues and feminism, even if I don’t agree with everything.
But, again, I asked a serious question, lest you all think that New York is a godless town (heck, we probably have more places of worship than the rest of the US put together).
Plus, I’m a lawyer, so I *will* bug the crap out of you if you don’t provide a straight answer.
Exactly what I asked was how “Christians,” whoever they may be (and I really, honestly don’t know whoever they may be) can exclude Catholics from their definition of “Christian.”
Hello.
I can’t answer for Hugo, but the distinction you mention has always struck me as rather odd. I have heard–and read–some strange explanations for the purported distinction, but I have yet to find one that is not rooted in some deep anti-Catholic prejudice.
I suppose one could point to the ecclesiastical abuses that led to the Reformation, but that’s a rather specious argument IMHO. The Roman Catholic Church today is very different from the Roman Catholic Church of Martin Luther’s day. Moreover, the same people who claim that Catholics are not Christians almost always discard the Orthodox branch of Christianity, too.
Perhaps Hugo can shed some light on the issue, but the “Christian vs. Catholic” issue has always been rooted in bigotry that is the antithesis of what Jesus taught. Those who claim Catholics are not Christians tend to follow some rather extreme interpretations of the Bible. The problem with such interpetations is that they allow for no historical or cultural context that accounts for the language chosen and the ideas emphasized in the scriptures. Furthermore, the extremist interpretations can be used to justify all kinds of hatred and abuses.
I remember noticing a sign on a (presumably) Baptist church in Brooklyn stating that this was a “Bible-believing Church” and being baffled that any church that considered itself tethered to either the Old or New Testaments would consider itself NOT a “Bible-believing Church.”
I don’t know for sure, but I think they were referring to the “sola scriptura” maxim of Martin Luther, which rejected “sacred tradition” as a form of divine revelation. The “tradition” persists in Roman Catholic teaching to this day. However, in the churches that broke away from the Catholic hierarchy in the days of Martin Luther and John Calvin, scripture was considered to be *the* revelation and “tradition” had no place in church teachings. That approach was not unreasonable, given that traditions had been used to justify practices like the indulgences that drove Martin Luther to the point of exasperation. Indulgences, once intended to be a form of spiritual reward for pious and charitable practices, had, by Luther’s time, degenerated into a form of church-sanctioned extortion whereby one could effective purchase “salvation” by donating money to their local priest or church.
Today, when churches claim to be “Bible-believing” or “Bible-teaching,” I’m fairly sure they mean that they reject extra-scriptural forms of divine revelation and focus strictly on the Bible as “the word of God.”
From an intellectual perspective, I have many problems with that approach. Given human nature as it is, it’s very hard for me to countenance a “god” who could create humanity–supposedly in his “image and likeness”–and who could impose so very many restrictions on his own revelation! That doesn’t make sense to me.
The most striking example I know of is the “creation vs. evolution” controversy. Many, if not most, of the strict “Bible-believing” groups deny that evolution is even possible. They reject Charles Darwin’s hypotheses about variation within species and natural selection and substitute the Genesis account of creation for Darwin’s theory. The problem, of course, is that the real world must become an illusion, if the Genesis account is to be literally true.
Moreover, instead of asking honest questions about whether natural selection operates over very long periods of time (as opposed to what we see today in bacteria that become resistant to even the most powerful antibiotics), the literalists reject the entire possibility of evolution and end up alienating the very people they hope to convert. Literalists of any religion make me crazy.
HTH
Jeff JP
But, again, I asked a serious question, lest you all think that New York is a godless town (heck, we probably have more places of worship than the rest of the US put together).
New York is not a godless town! Not at all! I love New York! In my mind, if one cannot find God in New York City, then one is avoiding God.
Plus, I’m a lawyer, so I *will* bug the crap out of you if you don’t provide a straight answer.
I, too, am a lawyer. Well, that is one of my occupations anyway. I try to leave a lot of the lawyer stuff out of blogging and commenting, though. That’s just my personal preference.
Jeff JP
The only thing I’d add to Jeff’s words, zuzu, is that certain segments of Protestant fundamentalist culture have created the impression that Catholics “worship Mary.” When I ask my students why it is that they were told Catholics aren’t really Christians, that is invariably the first answer.
Of course, I’ve met Catholic students who, bless their little hearts, couldn’t distinguish between “venerating” and “worshipping”, so I suppose that’s part of the problem too.
There was also this whole body of work, mostly from the 1700s and 1800s, that tried to make out practically everything about Catholicism to be adopted paganism. Probably the best known is Alexander Hislop’s The Two Babylons, which some Protestants are STILL using to argue that Catholics are idolators. There’s a critical discussion of the book and its claims here:
http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mischedj/ct_babylon.html
Thanks for the responses. I don’t remember hearing this kind of thing until my 30s, but that’s probably because I didn’t really hang out on the internets much before then.
Jeff, as for the lawyer thing, I usually give fair warning, as I have a tendency to slip into cross-examination mode. I’ve been told that’s a bit off-putting.
A friend of mine’s dad grew up Lutheran in the 50’s in very small town North Dakota. He remembers thinking, as a boy, that there was a very good chance the pope was the antichrist.
Well, given that the pope through much of the 50s was Pius XII…