The Myths of Christmas: Advice to my Fellow Clergy

The Toronto Globe and Mail published a column [6 September 2012] by a psychologist, Dr. Joti Samra, in which she responds to a mother who had asked for advice because her 12-year old son still believes in Santa Claus and, while it is endearing and embarrassing simultaneously, she was reluctant to break his spirit by telling him the truth.

Dr. Samra urged the mother to tell her son Santa was not real, noting that one of the amazing things about children is the innocence and enthusiasm of their beliefs and their awe at the wonders of the world, but that the duty of the parent is to help prepare them for the real world.  She observed that the way to approach the issue is to gently explain that the Santa myths have historical roots in the 4^th Century bishop St. Nicolas who was admired and recognized because he gave gifts secretly to those who were less fortunate and were in need, and then to help her son move beyond the Santa story to appreciate the value of unconditional gift-giving and the true spirit of Christmas which lives in us all when we give to others.

As is common for newspaper articles, readers commented on the story and I was fascinated by the range of comments, which can be categorized into several distinct groups: (a) Mom is the naïve one here because no 12-year old that is not living under a rock could possibly believe in Santa; her son is merely pretending because he has concluded there is some advantage in getting gifts from a pretend Santa.  (b) It is wonderful that there are kids who are so innocent of the hard realities of the world that we should let them continue to believe without destroying their innocence so long as it is possible for them because there is no point in discomforting them before they are ready for the truth.  (c)  As kids mature they give up their belief in Santa Claus as the jolly elderly elf who travels all over the world with his sleigh driven by flying reindeer and his sack of gifts for good children everywhere, so why as adults do they hold to the even more unbelievable story of a god who manages the events of the world and picks winners and losers, invisible guardian angels who fly, the son of the god born to a virgin, and a god who came back from the dead and now sits on a heavenly throne and will come back one day to judge the living and the dead. 

As I contemplated these responses from the standpoint of a humanist who chooses the life and teachings of Jesus as a model for ethical values but who does not buy into the mythical structure of traditional Christianity, I had some reflections from my early experience that might be helpful to parish clergy. 

A very long time ago when I was a student at a theological seminary in Rochester, New York, many students struggled with issues of faith and belief, which was one of the purposes of theological seminary (at least among the responsible seminaries!), and some seminarians who found they no longer believed the traditional theology found it was easier to pretend to believe than it was to give up their vocation and disappoint their friends and family.  Many of them chose to affiliate with liturgical denominations such as the Episcopalians/Anglicans, where they could say “the church believes” rather than “I believe.”

Early in my career, when I was chairman of the department of religion of an educational institution in New England I had a friend who was chaplain of a Catholic educational institution nearby that was run by a religious order and attached to a grotto of Mary that sold souvenirs and religious trinkets.  From conversations with him I knew that he did not believe that these trinkets had any actual spiritual value, so I asked him how he dealt with the fact that his religious order continued to sell these trinkets and encourage believing in their efficacy.  His response surprised me.  The people who come to the grotto are a very simple people, he said, like children, with very simple beliefs.  They don’t ask any questions and they are comfortable in their belief so why should we disturb them in their innocence and naivete?

Ah, the endearing innocence of children.  How comforting it is that our children are secure in their childhood beliefs in incredible stories and myths even as we know that the hard realities will intrude on them soon enough as they mature and outgrow them, some sooner, some later, but as that 1st Century Saint Paul (not Saint Nicolas!) reminds us—all of us must eventually become adults intellectually and spiritually and put behind us our childish beliefs.  That is all a part of the business of growing up spiritually.

And what is more incredible (“too improbable to be believed”) than the myth of a virgin giving birth to the son of a god who turns out to be the god himself,  expecting this god to help you win the next ball game or the next election or the war your nation fights against your neighbor.  What is more unbelievable than the claim that a collection of religious texts written two millennia ago was actually written by a god, or that a man wearing imperial robes and carrying a golden shepherd’s staff can act on behalf of a god as his emissary, or that the course of an illness or history will be changed because you asked for it.  The gullibility and the arrogance of such claims are monstrous.  They make the naivete of children seem so much more preferable, because at least the children outgrow their childish views.

Why don’t the same persons who are able to outgrow their childish views of Christmas not similarly outgrow their childish views about religion?

To my fellow clergy, who are reluctant to break the spirits of members of their congregation, you should need no reminder that the naïve beliefs of adults in your congregations are not endearing.  By using ambiguous language to avoid the issues you are prolonging their growth to maturity and interfering with the mandate of Saint Paul to put aside childish views and grow up into a mature faith that does not depend on mythology.  Borrowing from Dr. Samra, we suggest to our fellow clergy that the way to approach the issue is to gently explain that the Christian myths have historical roots in the 1st Century Jesus of Nazareth who was admired and recognized as a great teacher of love and compassion toward those who were less fortunate and were in need, and then to help their congregations move beyond the Christian mythology to appreciate the value of unconditional love and affirmation of others which is the true spirit of Christianity, which for the true Christian should live in them. 

What we wish for this Christmas is not that its myths be taken seriously, but rather that the spirit of generosity and kindness that underlies the spirit of Christmas become a reality in and for all of us, that the hungry are fed with bread and meat and not with empty promises, that the prisoners are visited with a spirit of reform of the human heart and not with promises of heavenly salvation, that the sick be visited with comfort and health care for all and a commitment to fight against the many illnesses that plague us, that the homeless find shelter accompanied by rehabilitation and job training and forbearance of foreclosures and evictions, and that the politicians sit down with each other and stop acting like children and get on with the business of compromise necessary to move us forward.

For all we wish joy, happiness and peace in the New Year – but we will not hold our breath waiting for it to happen.

Homophobic Christians Attack Lutheran Ministers

Newspaper websites frequently allow comments on news articles and I comment regularly on both national and local websites to try to get a voice of reason and compassion into conversations that are most often illiterate and hate-filled tirades, usually by Christian fundamentalists, who seem to rant without reason and blame it on their Christian outlook and their literalistic interpretation of the bible. A recent news article announced that a particular Lutheran denomination planned to remove a restriction against ordaining gay clergy, and that of course got homophobic Christians riled up enough to make their usual ill-considered and mean-spirited comments.

One writer, a small town politician and outspoken layman in a “Bible church” attacked my comments about the unchristian and uncivil nature of the verbal barrage they unleashed on the Lutherans, by questioning my “right” to speak on the subject of religious values and for my “foolishness” in trying to defend a church that “sinned” by allowing homosexuals to be “preachers” – So, I decided to take him on with some comment of my own.

Mr. Barber said: “It never ceases to amaze me how atheist, agnostics, secular humanists and the lot of you are such experts on religion.”

I am surprised at your statement for two reasons: first, because so far as I understand you are not an expert in religion, having no particular background or training; and second, because a number of people who regularly comment on this website do have a background in religion and philosophy far exceeding yours. In your list above you forgot to include “Christian humanist” but it is obvious that you intended to include me because you mentioned a particular phrase I used.

So I guess I should let you know that even though I am a non-theistic humanist, I have a background in religion, with advanced degrees in theology and philosophy and I am an ordained minister in the United Church of Christ. So do you think maybe I am qualified to comment? [If you want details of my background you can check my website at http://www.christianhumanist.net ].

You said: “Where the strife lies is when you all try to dictate the mind of God in each of our lives.”

I don’t think any of us knows “the mind of god” assuming there is such a thing, but it is not clear to me where you are going with that thought. Whatever is in the mind of god, it is unlikely to be hateful. You believe that god is homophobic, like you. It seems to me that I have been arguing that it is not up to you, or those who think like you, to try to tell homosexual Lutheran ministers that their sexual orientation is “sinful” – if you believe that it is sinful for you, abstain from what you believe is sinful behavior, but have the grace and the humility not to try to push your views on others. It is pretty clear that most Christians believe that homosexuality is an ingrained biological sexual orientation to which moral judgments do not apply. That is certainly true of many Christian denominations, including the Lutherans that are the subject of this article.

Mr. Barber had quoted a biblical verse as justification for his anti-gay views. I had countered with a verse from the same chapter that spoke about sharing your bounty with those in need, and observed that he objected to helping those in need so why was he concerned about the anti-gay passage? He responded: “[When the bible] speaks of sharing your bounty [it] means "your bounty" not the collective government’s bounty.”

I have to disagree with you, at least in part. The “you” here is the collective “you” that was addressed to Israel by its god. It was intended to apply to the whole people collectively and has always been interpreted that way. Of course it was not addressed to Americans, but by analogy it simply makes sense to say that god intends for our society (just as for Israelite society) to take care of its poor. Of course you must realize that our government is the collective “we” as in “we the people.” If you believe some portions of the bible apply to our society today, then you cannot arbitrarily say this directive does not apply to our society. To come to that interpretation you have to be reading scripture through Republican-tinted glasses, and conforming your biblical interpretation to your political philosophy.

“As each of us grows in the Lord things such as homosexuality will eventually be placed in prospective to our growth spiritually.”

[I think he meant that if I were a real Christian growing in the Lord I would understand that god rejects homosexual behavior, but I intentionally misread him, and commented…] So, if that is true, and since you believe that god made us the way he wanted us to be, because he made some people biologically homosexual [either he intended it, or it was an accident], don’t you believe that as you grow in perspective and in grace and love that your sin of homophobia should give way to acceptance and affirmation?

Usually there is not much point in responding with logic to people who have ingrained emotional attitudes that affect their beliefs that are probably not subject to change, but sometimes I do it anyway, and I think it is because I like to mess with their heads by approaching them in terms of their own belief system, no matter how naïve, simplistic and ignorant it is. It frustrates them, and it amuses me. I’m a really bad person at heart.