Christmas is for pagans, too

My friend Ann is not persuaded by Christian efforts to reclaim the Christmas season. I'd sent her a link to my debunking of the Newsweek story on Christmas. The heart of what she wrote back after reading that is excerpted here with her permission:

The righties are screaming Let's Put Christ Back In Christmas, oblivious that there is no biblical scholar of any repute who claims that Jesus was born on Dec. 25. Instead, "Christmas" was imposed on top of earlier pagan winter solstice festivals. (The old, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em and then co-opt 'em. Once again, Christians insisting that what's yours is theirs and what's theirs is theirs also.) In short, the cry by the righties should be: Let's Put The Pagan Back Into Christmas! to which I can only say, Amen. Bring on the mistletoe and the sacred oaks! Light the Yule Log and let's sacrifice some virgins -- if we can find 'em.

My reply to her didn't change her mind (it seldom does). For the record, however:

Whether Jesus was born on Dec. 25 is irrelevant to the fight over "Merry Christmas" vs. "Happy Holidays." Educated Christians aren't hung up on the date; we celebrate the event itself.

As for Christianity joining and co-opting what had been a winter solstice observation, what's wrong with that? Aren't progressives generally in favor of "inculturation" (or does that only apply when practiced successfully by non-Christians?).

It's not that Christians say "what's yours is theirs and what's theirs is theirs, also." As Saint Patrick probably told the druids of the Emerald Isle, we're stewards rather than masters of creation.

What Christians do say is that all of creation belongs to God.

The Christian God is unique in that he came down from heaven to become part of what He had created. In Catholic-speak, we call that "the Incarnation." And we believe that this event redeemed all of creation, not just the people in it. The "mechanics" of that saving act are beyond our ken, but we do believe that God has given a Cliff's Notes kind of understanding to the church. Consequently, we know a bit about why (because creation needed redeeming) and how (through the birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus).

Imagine: "He da Man" is actually a profound theological statement, when used of a certain Jewish carpenter whom we also confess to be the Son of God and the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity.

Sound like gobbledly-gook? Take a breath and a step back from the theological words: Even the late Joseph Campbell, that agnostic student of myth, would admit that this Christian narrative is more compelling on the storytelling (never mind metaphysical) level for many of us than curtseys to the moon over a yule log for the sake of seasonal rhythms.

So it's okay to put the pagan back in Christmas (as with that German carol to the trees, "O Tenanbaum"). Jesus came to save the pagans, too. But "Happy Holidays" doesn't do pagans any favors.

One thing I didn't say in that exchange with Ann, but probably should have, is that our culture needs no encouragement to "Put the Pagan Back into Christmas." That's its natural inclination, and a condition that Maulana Karenga took advantage of when he created Kwanzaa.