Good news? For whom?

Christians commonly refer to the New Testament message about Jesus as “the good news”. In fact, that designation appears in the Gospels themselves. For example, Luke 7:22:

Jesus answered them, “Go and tell John [the Baptist] what you have seen and heard:  the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, the poor have good news preached to them.”

Is the Gospel good news? Yes: but perhaps not for everyone.

I want to discuss one of my favourite Christmas texts. The text is beloved by Roman Catholics, who call it the Magnificat. But, in my experience, evangelical Protestants rarely refer to it, let alone preach on it.

The context is this. Mary was visited by an angel, who told her that she was going to bear a son:  “He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High … of his kingdom there will be no end.”

Mary and ElizabethThe angel added that Mary’s cousin Elizabeth had also conceived a son (John the Baptist) in her old age:  “This is the sixth month with her who was called barren. For nothing will be impossible with God.”

Mary then rushed off to visit Elizabeth, at which point we come to my text, the Magnificat.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Mary says:

My soul magnifies the Lord,
and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
for he has looked on the humble estate of his servant.
For behold, from now on all generations will call me blessed;
for he who is mighty has done great things for me,
and holy is his name.
And his mercy is for those who fear him
from generation to generation.
He has shown strength with his arm;
he has scattered the proud in the thoughts of their hearts;
he has brought down the mighty from their thrones
and exalted those of humble estate;
he has filled the hungry with good things,
and the rich he has sent empty away.
He has helped his servant Israel,
in remembrance of his mercy,
as he spoke to our fathers,
to Abraham and to his offspring forever.(Luke 1:46-55)

The Gospel is indeed good news — for some. According to the first passage I sited, it is good news for the blind, the lame, lepers, the deaf, the poor: and even the dead. According to the second passage, the Gospel is good news for “those of humble estate” and the hungry.

Mary illustrates the kind of person for whom the Gospel is good news. She describes herself in these exact words:  “God has looked on the humble estate of his servant.” Mary was chosen, not for her significance in the eyes of the world, but for her insignificance.

Yes, I assume Mary was devoted to God and morally respectable. But it was also a prerequisite of her calling that she should be one of the “people of the land” — the common rabble — who were viewed with contempt by those who held religious office.

The text goes so far as to say that God will scatter the proud, bring down the mighty from their thrones, and reduce the rich to penury. For people in these categories, the Gospel apparently is not good news.
Read the rest of this entry »

Who has hijacked Christmas? From whom?

Have atheists hijacked Christmas? Randy Kennedy quotes the full-time infidel, Sam Harris:

It seems to me to be obvious that everything we value in Christmas — giving gifts, celebrating the holiday with our families, enjoying all of the kitsch that comes along with it — all of that has been entirely appropriated [from Christians] by the secular world.

Thus Harris feels OK about having a Christmas tree at home, even though he thinks the world would be better off without faith.

Was Harris right? Has he correctly identified everything we value in Christmas?

An Andrew Sullivan reader reverses the usual complaint. He argues that Christians have hijacked a secular model of Christmas:

As a religious holiday, pre-modern Christmases were rather austere celebrations defined by lengthy church services. That this coincided with pagan culture’s raucous celebrations of the winter solstice was a source of great displeasure to institutional Christianity for centuries. The “kitsch” that Harris discusses (Evergreen Trees, the man from the north who brings us goodies) are pagan icons. Giving gifts and spending time with your family and friends (instead of spending the day in mass) are also holdovers from popular tradition of drinking and reveling which the church had been actively hostile to.

In short, everything WE secularists value in Christmas has been entirely appropriated by the Christian world.

It’s a provocative point. Maybe Christians should return Santa Claus, commercialism, and partying to those who have no faith.

Personally, I can still accept Christmas trees:  I view them as a universal symbol, neither Christian nor pagan.

It’s like “darkness” and “light”. Those terms have been used in Christian theology, but they are hardly unique to our religion. It’s an obvious symbol that has been utilized by every religion, and by secularists, too.

Similarly, evergreen trees are an obvious symbol of life during a season when so much of nature is dormant (taking on the appearance of death). No, Christians weren’t the first to seize on that symbolism. But I won’t concede that Christmas trees are peculiarly pagan, either.

Could we settle for a Christmas tree with just a few presents under it — one for each member of the household? Then we could focus our energies on singing carols, and rehearsing the tale of Christ’s birth and our redemption.

Perhaps Christmas could become a season of rest, enjoyed in quietude with our families:  instead of rushing to the mall dozens of times for “one last thing”. Or spending dozens of evenings at church, for that matter.

What is it that Christians truly value about Christmas, anyway? It would be hard to guess the correct answer, based on how we actually celebrate the season.