I Made Christmas Trees for the Girls and Bloody Spearheads for Bart!
Basically, my point here is that there is NO SUCH THING as a "true/real meaning of Christmas."
I shall distinguish between "strong" and "weak" Christmas. "Strong" Christmas refers to the liturgical seasons of the Christian calendar that fall between late November and mid-January, specifically Advent and Christmas, and their observance. "Weak" Christmas refers to the calendar-year-end celebratory period that is broadly observed, economically and socially, in the U.S. (Hereinafter I shall use "Christmas" in reference to the strong version, and "christmas" in reference to the weak.)
From this it should be clear that many more people celebrate christmas than Christmas: not all Americans are Christian, and not all American Christians are religiously observant (one can fairly recognize similar differences between "strong" and "weak" Christians, not as a matter of belief but of practice. I, for example, am a weak Christian in this sense). Furthermore, not all Christian traditions observe Christmas (the Puritans, for example, did not).
By definition (see above), christmas lacks the kind of religious significance for its observers that it has for observers of Christmas (and just to make it explicit, it is possible [though not required] to observe christmas while observing Christmas). That in itself should be enough to make it clear that there is no "real/true meaning" of the holiday(s). More than that, though, there has never been any such thing.
The history of christmas involves early-winter celebrations from many traditions, religious and secular. Many of these traditions antedate Christianity. Moreover, the Church historically coöpted local traditions as it expanded territorially: the local traditions were often popular (for the same reason that the Puritan ban on christmas seems inconceivable today) which meant they were hard to stamp out, so the Church simply gave them a Christian façade (see Hallowe'en). This process has been documented in post-Columbian Central America, where it is apparently still a work in progress, with no guarantee of success. (It can be argued, as by the current Pope, that the date of Christmas can be deduced from the date of the Annunciation; however, given that the latter is suspect, that argument is disingenuous.)
What is particularly important about many of those coïncidental celebrations is that they were celebrations of abundance. Most of them had their origins in strictly agricultural societies, when the harvest had been completed and storage was as full as it would be for the next year. It may be that the christmas commercialism has its roots in early-winter carousing and indulgence, such as the practice of wassailing in England. Ironically, however, it is the non-religious activity, the kind that is now regularly decried as detrimental to the "true/real meaning of Christmas," that is the sole similarity between all of the various festivals, such that – historically speaking – if there were a "true/real meaning," it would consist in that non-religious activity.
In this connection, it is interesting to note that Easter lacks an extensive secular analogue of christmas. Christmas is of logical importance (no birth of Jesus, no Jesus), but Easter is of theological importance, and supremely so (no Easter, no Christianity). Christmas is about the person of Jesus, the nativity of Jesus' human flesh (the divine Jesus has always existed and, as such, does not have a birthday); Easter, and all of Christianity, is about the redemption of the world. If ever there were a Christian holy day meant for celebration, Easter is it. But unlike Easter, christmas had the advantage of widespread existing coïncidental celebrations of which to take advantage.
History also has interesting things to say about the significance of the legal christmas holiday. Its origins do indeed lie in the historical supremacy of Christianity in the American electorate. But that historical circumstance does not, and did not, determine the holiday or its significance. Christmas did not become a Federal holiday until 1870; the first state to make it an official holiday was Alabama in 1836, while the last was Oklahoma in 1907. What this means is that, for a large part of the United States' history, lots of practicing Christians did not find their secular practices (such as going to work) to conflict with their religious observance of Christmas. Rather, the official holiday's origins lie in changing secular practice: specifically, the shift from rowdy public celebration à la Carnival to quieter, more domestic observances like those immortalized in C. C. Moore's "A Visit from St. Nicholas". A voluntary effort was made in 1820s New York City to create a de facto commercial holiday, but it didn't last. It wasn't until most people wanted to stay at home with their families on Christmas Day that December 25th became a public holiday. Yes, the reason for deciding upon Christmas Day was religious, but christmas parties were the reason for turning it into a public holiday. Once it became a public holiday, is it wonderful that people to whom Christmas was of no religious significance began to observe christmas in their own ways? Far more imporatant is the reälization that, to American Christians, christmas has been sufficiently secularized for the public holiday not to violate the Establishment Clause of the U.S. constitution — but their compatriots of other religions do not share that sense of secularization.
However much or little we can trace out the history of holiday practices, though, traditions do change, and their present significance need not (and in some cases, as with Christmas, cannot) be the same as the original (if indeed there ever was one). But by the same token, one person's significance need not be another's, and it is churlish to insist upon it. The "true/real meaning" of the holiday we call Christmas (used here purely as a proper noun) is, finally, personal rather than historical.
I shall distinguish between "strong" and "weak" Christmas. "Strong" Christmas refers to the liturgical seasons of the Christian calendar that fall between late November and mid-January, specifically Advent and Christmas, and their observance. "Weak" Christmas refers to the calendar-year-end celebratory period that is broadly observed, economically and socially, in the U.S. (Hereinafter I shall use "Christmas" in reference to the strong version, and "christmas" in reference to the weak.)
From this it should be clear that many more people celebrate christmas than Christmas: not all Americans are Christian, and not all American Christians are religiously observant (one can fairly recognize similar differences between "strong" and "weak" Christians, not as a matter of belief but of practice. I, for example, am a weak Christian in this sense). Furthermore, not all Christian traditions observe Christmas (the Puritans, for example, did not).
By definition (see above), christmas lacks the kind of religious significance for its observers that it has for observers of Christmas (and just to make it explicit, it is possible [though not required] to observe christmas while observing Christmas). That in itself should be enough to make it clear that there is no "real/true meaning" of the holiday(s). More than that, though, there has never been any such thing.
The history of christmas involves early-winter celebrations from many traditions, religious and secular. Many of these traditions antedate Christianity. Moreover, the Church historically coöpted local traditions as it expanded territorially: the local traditions were often popular (for the same reason that the Puritan ban on christmas seems inconceivable today) which meant they were hard to stamp out, so the Church simply gave them a Christian façade (see Hallowe'en). This process has been documented in post-Columbian Central America, where it is apparently still a work in progress, with no guarantee of success. (It can be argued, as by the current Pope, that the date of Christmas can be deduced from the date of the Annunciation; however, given that the latter is suspect, that argument is disingenuous.)
What is particularly important about many of those coïncidental celebrations is that they were celebrations of abundance. Most of them had their origins in strictly agricultural societies, when the harvest had been completed and storage was as full as it would be for the next year. It may be that the christmas commercialism has its roots in early-winter carousing and indulgence, such as the practice of wassailing in England. Ironically, however, it is the non-religious activity, the kind that is now regularly decried as detrimental to the "true/real meaning of Christmas," that is the sole similarity between all of the various festivals, such that – historically speaking – if there were a "true/real meaning," it would consist in that non-religious activity.
In this connection, it is interesting to note that Easter lacks an extensive secular analogue of christmas. Christmas is of logical importance (no birth of Jesus, no Jesus), but Easter is of theological importance, and supremely so (no Easter, no Christianity). Christmas is about the person of Jesus, the nativity of Jesus' human flesh (the divine Jesus has always existed and, as such, does not have a birthday); Easter, and all of Christianity, is about the redemption of the world. If ever there were a Christian holy day meant for celebration, Easter is it. But unlike Easter, christmas had the advantage of widespread existing coïncidental celebrations of which to take advantage.
History also has interesting things to say about the significance of the legal christmas holiday. Its origins do indeed lie in the historical supremacy of Christianity in the American electorate. But that historical circumstance does not, and did not, determine the holiday or its significance. Christmas did not become a Federal holiday until 1870; the first state to make it an official holiday was Alabama in 1836, while the last was Oklahoma in 1907. What this means is that, for a large part of the United States' history, lots of practicing Christians did not find their secular practices (such as going to work) to conflict with their religious observance of Christmas. Rather, the official holiday's origins lie in changing secular practice: specifically, the shift from rowdy public celebration à la Carnival to quieter, more domestic observances like those immortalized in C. C. Moore's "A Visit from St. Nicholas". A voluntary effort was made in 1820s New York City to create a de facto commercial holiday, but it didn't last. It wasn't until most people wanted to stay at home with their families on Christmas Day that December 25th became a public holiday. Yes, the reason for deciding upon Christmas Day was religious, but christmas parties were the reason for turning it into a public holiday. Once it became a public holiday, is it wonderful that people to whom Christmas was of no religious significance began to observe christmas in their own ways? Far more imporatant is the reälization that, to American Christians, christmas has been sufficiently secularized for the public holiday not to violate the Establishment Clause of the U.S. constitution — but their compatriots of other religions do not share that sense of secularization.
However much or little we can trace out the history of holiday practices, though, traditions do change, and their present significance need not (and in some cases, as with Christmas, cannot) be the same as the original (if indeed there ever was one). But by the same token, one person's significance need not be another's, and it is churlish to insist upon it. The "true/real meaning" of the holiday we call Christmas (used here purely as a proper noun) is, finally, personal rather than historical.
posted by Dr. Bubbles at 13:23
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home