click here to tweet this post
click here to share with your friends
subscribe to this feed
The Offense of Christmas
by Doug PowellDecember 22nd, 2008
25 Comments
In the quest for political correctness over the last two decades one of the primary battlegrounds has been centered around Christmas. The phrase “Merry Christmas” and all the public displays associated with it have been considered offensive for a variety of reasons. Pluralists object because it is exclusivistic, those who hold to other faiths feel slighted or left out, and many atheists simply object to all public religious displays. For these people Christmas is so offensive it needs to be cleansed from our vocabulary so that the “Christmas Spirit” (whatever that is) can be ascribed to just about anything that can qualify for the phrase “Happy Holidays.” At best, the sacred is replaced by the sentimental.
Christians, on the other hand, often find it hard to understand what could possibly be offensive about celebrating the birth Jesus, the Prince of Peace. After all, he is the incarnation of a loving God who came into the world as a savior. What’s so offensive about that? The answer is: EVERYTHING!
The incarnation of the second member of the Trinity is an event so glorious, so mysterious and so wonderful we should celebrate it everyday. It should radically transform our lives and affect everything we do. But in addition to being glorious, mysterious, and wonderful, the incarnation is a powerful indictment of every person who has ever lived. Jesus’ birth is a judgment that says we are all guilty before a holy, righteous, and just God, and that we can do nothing to save ourselves from his wrath. Without Jesus we are lost, utterly without hope, condemned. We are in desperate need of a savior. And the idea of a defenseless infant being our savior sprinkles our indictment with a bit of humiliation.
Quite frankly, that is pretty offensive. Being told your are wrong, lost, helpless, hopeless, and condemned doesn’t exactly make you want to celebrate by running out to buy presents for your friends and family and trimming up the tree. At a time when Christianity in America has been so focused on seeker-sensitive services and has gone to great lengths not to offend anyone, Christians have forgotten a very important truth: the Gospel is offensive.
In fact, if the offensiveness of the Gospel is removed then there is no Gospel left. Without an understanding of what we need to be saved from we would never recognize or even look for a savior. For Jesus to come into the world as a savior without offending anyone makes no sense. Jesus didn’t come into the world as a good example, he came to do what we could not do for ourselves. A drowning man must understand his circumstance accurately to recognize the hand that will pull him to safety and give him a reason to grab it. The offensiveness of the Gospel is what makes it Good News since it reveals what we are saved from and why we need a savior, as well as who that savior is.
This is what makes Christmas merry – it is the arrival of the way that God has provided for his righteous judgment to be satisfied. Everything that makes us lost, wrong, hopeless, helpless, and condemned is what Jesus came to take from us – our sin. The coming of the savior in Bethlehem over 2000 years ago is only worth celebrating if we understand what he came to save us from. And that is the offense of Christmas.
Similar Posts:
- Merry Christ-miss from the American Humanist Association
- Why the Santa/God Parallel Does Not Work for Atheists (But Does For Theists)
- Top Ten Biblical Discoveries in Archaeology – #6 Pontius Pilate Inscription
- Engaging Postmodernism (5): Changing the Water
- Entire APOLOGETICS Program Just $249.99 – For 3 Days
Loading ...
25 Comments
Like or Dislike:
1
Good word.
Like or Dislike:
0
Anyone concerned about possible misconstruals when they wish others a Merry Christmas are free to use the disclaimer I developed:
http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/2008/12/articles-of-christmas.html
Like or Dislike:
0
As a non Christian, I’ve always celebrated a merry Christmas – singing carols, getting together, teaching children the Christian stories. Why be offended? We all believe in different things and I haven’t heard the idea of the Christian gospel being offensive from anyone but Christians themselves. Like other countries, we have many faiths and we all wish each other Merry Christmas as well as recognising other religious festivals. While Christmas might be the biggest annual festival due to all the peripheral celebrating from church to Christmas trees and Father Christmas, there is no animosity from other faiths. The Muslim community here have made it clear they don’t want a ‘Happy Holiday’ but a ‘merry Christmas’. Sometimes I wonder how much of the striving for ‘political correctness’ actually comes from Christians. They were the ones who brought up ‘happy holidays’ here. I can’t believe New Zealand is so different in this respect from other countries.
Like or Dislike:
0
as a Christian , Steph, I think I agree with you, to a certain extent. But at the same time there are aspects of the gospel that do offend. But at the same time it seems to me that we can try to be offensive to try an get a reaction from nonbelievers to validate ourselves…..” see, I told you so “……kind of like creating a martyr complex to justify or validate ourselves. It seems like since we believers in the west generally don’t experience the same kind of persecution that other believers do in other parts of the world or down through history that we actually try to be offensive to get a reaction. The fact is we in the west barely experience any kind of real persecution. We live in a pluralistic society. Some seem to try to purposefully offend people.
The gospel offends but do we try to purposefully add to the offense or heighten it’s offensiveness? I think we believers can sometimes be really dumb. It’s like we need to offend people to give ourselves assurance. But at the same time the gospel does offend. I am scattered when it comes to this subject.
Like or Dislike:
0
Christians can tend to be conceited and even obnoxious about their faith – that they are right and you are wrong, that non believers will burn in hell etc. But if you don’t believe, it’s not offensive. Why is the gospel offensive to non believers? I find the New Testament absolutely fascinating which is why I have devoted my life to it. While we might teach our children the traditional birth stories and sing hymns and carols, Christmas is more than just Christianity for most non Christians.
Perhaps it is just because Christians are so conceited, that they believe ‘Christmas’ and the gospel must be offensive when actually non Christians don’t care.
Like or Dislike:
0
Steph, you characterize yourself as a non-Christian, but what are you? What I mean is that some people will be more offended than others depending on what they think about Christianity. East Asians may just celebrate the occasion as a secular festivity, but Jews are much more sensitive to the religious and historical contexts. That shouldn’t make them offended by Christmas, however. I would not feel offended if someone wants to wish me Happy Hanukkah because I realize they are wishing me something good that means a lot to them. Something that really bothers me in current society is that I cannot wish strangers ‘Merry Christmas’ with confidence, as was possible several decades ago. One of the ironic products of diversity is this coldness in society.
Like or Dislike:
0
I’m offended by this post.
Like or Dislike:
0
Brrrr! Baby, it’s cold outside! Sex and violence are pounded into us in every venue by the world, and moral apathy is the new secular leaven – it’s no wonder Jesus warned about being “lukewarm”: if you fall to room temperature you become insipid. So it’s better maybe to get your feathers ruffled a bit than to say, “OK whatever, have a nice life”, and go away without so much as one question for God about your spiritual condition.
Jesus took the risk to be offensive: he told the Bible scholars of his day that they had no idea what the scriptures meant; he chummed around with the worst kind of people, and they liked him! When he talked to the most publicly esteemed religious leaders of his day, he called them phonies and full of filth inside. Whoa! And when he chased the crooks out of the Temple, a plot was hatched to murder him.
On the other hand, he was the inspiration for twelve men, and many more, to go to their deaths with joy on their faces. Go figure.
Christmas was never intended to be a lukewarm, merely sentimental party time.
I guess I can put it this way: I used to really like Santa Clause because he brought me candy and toys, but when I got older I realized that my parents, who were “offensive” to me from about twelve years old to nineteen, provided me with the love and discipline and opportunities to become a man. Love, as they say, is a verb, and sometimes the soul aches from its vigour.
Like or Dislike:
0
Steph
I find you to be a very interesting person. You call yourself a “Non-Christian” and yet you “devoted your life to the New Testament.”
If I may ask you a question I think we can agree that Christmas is the celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ. Now Christians believe that he is God incarnate and by His own recorded words He says:
“I am the way, and the truth, and the life.No one comes to the Father except through me…..”
One of his friends and companions who walked with him during his life time said:
“And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among people by which we must be saved.”
My question is this, would it not stand to reason that Christians should state that any other way to heaven or method of salvation is wrong? Or perhaps it is the attitude that some Christians you have come across have poor attitudes when stating the truth? Which I grant you is true on numerous times.
Like or Dislike:
0
My first degree was in world religions. I pursued post grad studies in the history of Christianity and my Ph D is the Synoptic Problem – ie the history of the earliest sources in Aramaic and Greek. I love history passionately. I am not a theologian. What Christians believe is irrelevant, my studies are independent so to speak. I don’t understand the relevance of your question.
As I suggested in an earlier comment, the other religious groups, Muslim, Jewish etc, are not offended by Christmas. They have their faith which they believe is right and Christians have their faith. Why do you Christians over there insist they must be offensive to others? I was listing to one of our leading rabbis yesterday, speaking about the histories of some different festivals. We can all live in harmony here, why can’t you?
Like or Dislike:
0
Steph,
some believers insist on being offensive to others because they are religious or moralistic people. It’s sad but there are certain circles within christianity who start from that point. I guess since they are coming from a moralistic, not gospel centered, framework this gives them a sense of identity and uniqueness. But also Steph the christian gospel does offend. The gospel says that you are not a good person. It says you are a sinner. It says that you need a savior. It says that Jesus is the true Savior of the world. Therefore it excludes all other ways. Therefore it says all other so called prophets or rabbis or spiritual teachers are false……they aren’t legit. There is only one Savior and He is Jesus Christ. I think that’s why the gospel is offensive.
Like or Dislike:
0
Steph, if you, as a non-Christian, aren’t offended by the implications of the incarnation, I don’t think you really “get” what the incarnation is all about.
Mr. Powell, this article was a blessing to read– I never thought of the Gospel’s offense being that which makes it the “good news.” Thank you!
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] moment of clarity Doug Powell at Parchment and Pen reminds me that “Merry Christmas” is actually more offensive than most non-Christians [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
Oh I know, and I “get” it wow and Cannie. According to the Bible I’m destined for eternal torment in hell due to my non belief and I’m an evil sinner. But you see, it doesn’t offend me because I, like other non Christians, don’t believe it is the “literal word of God” or “word of God” in any sense. I read these texts in the context of contemporary literature, in the context of other religious traditions, in the context of their social and historical origins. I don’t believe them to be true. Of course the authors believed what they wrote, wrote to teach lessons, wrote to transmit traditions and events to many different audiences for many different effects. How can we be offended. Maybe I would be offended if I felt lost and extremely paranoid – and inevitably a prime target for conversion. To the rest of us it is water of a duck’s back. We have other beliefs and ideologies – it is you who insist on the drama.
Like or Dislike:
0
Steph,
I find myself both in and out of agreement with Doug Powell. What he doesn’t touch upon is our need to get along in a pluralistic commons, which America has to a greater degree than any country in the history of the human race. I agree that too often “separation of church and state” becomes the rallying cry for the new secularism; the courts must balance separation with the free exercise clause. Here we run up against an intractible problem–no balance has as yet been discovered between separation and free exercise. So long as separation takes precedence over free exercise, we will have a society which forbids its religious members from entering the commons as full citizens. In a sense, religious Americans are indeed being asked to step into the public sphere as agnostics or atheists, for all practical purposes. Simultaneously, they are asked to limit the practice and expression of their beliefs to special spaces *outside* the public sphere, as in churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, etc. There is a real sense here in America that religious people are second class citizens, and if you can understand that then you might begin to get why American religious folk are so easily duped into voting for any Republican who comes along with a claim to being a “conservative Christian”–they’re desperate to enter the public sphere as full citizens! The Republican Party has picked up on this desperation and it has now become a major strategy in their campaigns to garner votes.
So, on the one hand, our entire government is embedded in the most thoroughgoing secular structure in the world, yet our citizenry is largely religious. We have separation of church and state *and* free exercise, which cannot be neatly reconciled. On the other hand, we are in the schizophrenic condition of possessing a religious majority in a country where that amounts to second-class citizenship. Thus, a widespread sense of disenfranchisement from political authority.
Taking all of this into consideration, I want to say that I understand all of this inveighing against “political correctness.” Religious Americans feel that their sphere of genuine activity has been reduced too much already. Yet, political correctness also seems to be about enforcing common decency in a country where disenfranchised groups are biting at each other and bickering and sometimes even doing violence to each other. It’s the phenomenon of lateral oppression on a majority scale. The oppressed will internalize their oppression, taking it out on other oppressed groups.
This is the “inside” situation with America’s religious majority. I hope it helps you understand the complications we face–complications that, you’ll pardon me, don’t exist in their distinctly and hyperbolically American form in New Zealand.
Your points about the Bible are well taken.
Like or Dislike:
0
OK, what I was asking was if not a Christian then are you an athiest, Muslim, Jewish etc etc. But I believe you answered that question anyway.
So you see the New Testament as litterature, so do you see it as fictional, poetical or historical litterature? Do you have the same view of the Old Testament?
Would you be willing to open a line of communication via email? For what i believe would be very stimulating email conversation.
Like or Dislike:
0
Steph, I see. The Gospel, tho’ it addresses the problem of sin, does not offend you because you don’t take it seriously… due to your unbelief of sin and judgment. Do you believe in life after death?
Your interest in the N.T. as literature only is fascinating. I suppose it’s akin to those who devote their lives to the analysis of fantasy literature such as Tolkien.
If you had lived in the first century and were in the audience of Paul or Peter (or someone else who personally knew Jesus and saw His claims validated by the resurrection), would you be more likely to believe their testimony?
Like or Dislike:
0
Hey Steph,
Welcome!
That’s a pretty good question from Cannie.
I’ll add this:
If, as you say, the biblical writers (focusing on the Gospels) believed what they wrote, how do you explain their accounts of the resurrection? The disciples were convinced they saw Jesus killed, then later saw him alive again. And they made reference to many other witnesses. If they truly believed it, yet you see it as false, it seems you would need to hold a viable theory of how they believed they experienced something that, in actuality, did not happen.
Like or Dislike:
0
In the first century I don’t know if I’d believe Paul. Not if I knew Jesus. The biblical texts are not fantasy. They are historical. I am interested in history. I am interested in Jesus. Jesus believed in things I’d believe in the first century too. He believed his mission was to bring Jewish people back to God (tuv, the Aramaic origin of ‘repent’). The sources suggest he was an apocalyptic prophet who believed people would suffer, believed in judgement, and predicted the temple would fall (but not be burned, which it was). I prefer to think of myself as agnostic. The resurrection stories are developments of traditions about visions. The Life of the Historical Jesus by Casey, is due out in 2010 and puts forward all the reasons for this and all of his demonstrations coincide with my own work and thinking.
Have a very merry Christmas!
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] I came across a post at the theological blog Parchment and Pen that said forthrightly – even in sort of a bragging tone – that if the easily offended postmodern [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
If I may add: the accounts of Jesus’ resurrection and ascension came about in writing too quickly and consistently to be adaptive myths, etc. These written testimonies were given by living authors for the express purpose of evidence for faith in the risen Jesus. It all conforms to the formal rules of evidence, no less.
Regarding the “offence” of the Gospel – in Germany, it is a “hate crime” to share the Gospel of Jesus, especially to a Muslim, or anyone else who is “offended” by God’s salvation message. In the United Kingdom, you can be jailed for handing out tracts or sharing the Gospel door-to-door, etc., although the Bobbies are rather polite and will let you off with a warning the first time around.
Remember, the rights to freedom of speech and assembly are unique to the USA: or are they? In Orange County, California, it is against the law to have a Bible study or a Church gathering in your home. Also, the “hate crime” aspect of gagging evangelists is attractive to some in our government; also, rejection of evolution, new world order, and the coming one-world religion will constitute mental illness, so that Christians who remain faithful to Christ can be labelled “out of touch with reality” – so my point is that the Gospel of Jesus is not only offensive to the world at large, they are actively engaged in snuffing us out. They hate it!
Like or Dislike:
0
Oops! Steph, I wanted to share Isaiah 49, which calls Jesus the “Light of the Gentiles”, after saying it isn’t enough just to save Israel, but the whole world would benefit from the Gospel (also in Genesis, the promise to Abraham). The apostle Paul makes it clear that this “mystery” of global salvation was his special ministry to the Gentiles.
Anyone ever get lost in an unfamiliar town and turn onto a dead end street? When you see your error, you turn around and go back to the correct road, right? Repentance??
Like or Dislike:
0
I must concur with Steph, as a fellow New Zealander it is easy to wish others a Merry Christmas, and those I know of other religious traditions are not offended. They know that Christmas is a Christian celebration, and also know that they’re free to join in if they like.
Although there are secularists over here they seem willing to follow the general rough and ready Kiwi form of tolerance. That is pretty much if you’re not a complete AH we’ll give you a hearing. They also seem far less vocal, although there is a woman called Vicki Hyde who gets on the radio and tries to drive a wedge between science and Christianity. Her host doesn’t tell people that she’s a member of the New Zealand sceptics and therefore her ruminations on God should be taken with a grain (or salt cellar) of salt.
European Christians didn’t knuckle under when Communists went through and tried to crush them. The Church could itself be described as an anvil that has worn out many hammers. When Europe is an Islamic paradise, with a Imam on every street corner, where secularists convert or die (they’ll convert, it’s not as if they’re living for anything greater than their lives) we can look at them and laugh.
Like or Dislike:
0
Shawn,
It’s interesting that you feel that religious people are “second-class citizens”, because I sometimes have the same belief from the other point of view – that atheists are second-class citizens. Can you imagine a president being elected now who is openly atheist? We have a de facto religious requirement to achieve the highest office in our country. And I am constantly aware of the need to repel religious efforts to pass laws that will force me or others, in effect, to behave like a religious person (laws against abortion and laws against homosexual marriage come to mind).
I think there’s a fair amount of perceptual bias coming into play here.
Like or Dislike:
1
Mary B.: not to disregard the intent of your message, but what do you call a President who openly avows allegiance to a one-world government, one-world economy, and one-world religion? I mean, one of our best known leaders virtually said that all religions lead to God, tacitly denying the unique lordship and salvation of our Lord, Jesus, Christ; and this former President was called “Christian” by many. I suggest we all look a little closer.
And all organizations that “embrace all faiths as equal” are not giving honor to the Gospel message, and thus to God himself: this can seem like a good thing, but in the end it is the spirit of antichrist.
The phrase, “All roads lead to Rome” might be more appropriate in this context, no?
More Comments: