Numerous articles and blogs have noted the strong case to doubt Christmas' authentically "Christian" origins. Christ probably wasn't born on Dec. 25. The Puritans banned the holiday because it wasn't authentically Christian. And many of its rituals trace to the pagan celebration of the Winter Solstice or Saturnalia.
The modern understanding of Christmas is also significantly influenced by Charles Dickens' class "A Christmas Carol." Some Christians argue we need to put "Christ" back into Christmas and remind folks what "Christmas" is supposed to be all about. They might want to turn to Dickens' classic in support of that cause; but it would do them no good.
Charles Dickens, you see, was a Unitarian Christian. And "A Christmas Carol" preaches a decidedly (19th Century) Unitarian message on Christmas. To Unitarians, "Christianity" was all about good works and good will, NOT God's grace through Christ's atonement. Indeed, Unitarians view Jesus as the greatest moral teacher, someone who "saved" man through his stellar moral example, not blood atonement. And "A Christmas Carol" hardly ever mentions Jesus at all.
Now, orthodox Christians likewise appreciate good works and good will. But that is secondary to God's grace through the shed blood of Jesus Christ -- God the Son Incarnate. And "A Christmas Carol" celebrates this message that the orthodox could consider at best secondary or incidental, not the central theme of the Christian religion.
That said, have a Merry Unitarian Christmas.
11 comments:
"And how did Tim behave?" asked Mrs. Cratchitt... "As good as gold," said Bob, "and better. Somehow he gets thoughtful, sitting by himself so much, and thinks the strangest things you ever heard. He told me, coming home, that he hoped the people saw him in church, because he was a cripple, and it might be pleasant to them to remember, upon Christmas Day, who made lame beggars walk, and blind men see."
I don't exactly know what a "Unitarian" Christmas is. This is "Christian" enough for me.
Have a Happy Merry...Whatever.
My family used to do Church (Catholic Mass) on Christmas and Easter until we kids got old enough to realize that was just hypocritical (I think the parents wanted to keep a nominal connection to Church alive should we show any interest). Now it's just weddings and funerals and I haven't been to Church on Christmas or Easter in years.
Though the student of religion in me wants to spend Christmas going to all of the different churches in the area, liberal, conservative, Catholic, Protestant, Quaker, Unitarian, just to survey how each deals with the holiday message.
My post btw, sort of dovetails with earlier comment you left; 18th and 19th Century unitarianism and Unitarianism isn't quite what Unitarian-Universalism is today. Back then it was quite theistic and quite biblical, but nonetheless had the tendency to elevate works over faith and "genericize" Christianity into mere morality.
As Ben Franklin perfectly summed up this attitude:
Faith is recommended as a Means of producing Morality: Our Saviour was a Teacher of Morality or Virtue, and they that were deficient and desired to be taught, ought first to believe in him as an able and faithful Teacher. Thus Faith would be a Means of producing Morality, and Morality of Salvation. But that from such Faith alone Salvation may be expected, appears to me to be neither a Christian Doctrine nor a reasonable one….Morality or Virtue is the End, Faith only a Means to obtain that End: And if the End be obtained, it is no matter by what Means.
It's quite clear that Franklin rejected "faith alone saves," as you cite right here.
But let us recall his 1840 letter to the Great Awakening leader George Whitefield:
"You will see in this my notion of good works, that I am far from expecting to merit heaven by them. By heaven we understand a state of happiness, infinite in degree, and eternal in duration. I can do nothing to deserve such rewards. He that, for giving a draft of water to a thirsty person, should expect to be paid with a good plantation, would be modest in his demands, compared with those who think they deserve heaven for the little good they do on earth."
It's odd to me that a google turns up all sorts of assertions by places like Time magazine that Franklin was "hoping to achieve salvation through good works." Quote.
Well not odd, really. There is much work to do in straightening out all this "common knowledge" about religion and the Founding. I find it easy to wave away Dominionists as a fringe whose vision of a theocratic America has zero chance of becoming reality.
But Time magazine is reputedly a "reliable" source.
As for "faith alone saves" vs. justification by good works, the Bible says that faith without good works is dead, a formulation that satisfies many, and one that Franklin would surely endorse.
Ooops. Someone might want to email Stephen Waldman; the date is off by 100 years.
Waldman, btw, about 3 or 4 years ago confused me with that "other" more famous "Jonathan Rowe."
Now, orthodox Christians likewise appreciate good works and good will. But that is secondary to God's grace through the shed blood of Jesus Christ -- God the Son Incarnate. And "A Christmas Carol" celebrates this message that the orthodox could consider at best secondary or incidental, not the central theme of the Christian religion.>
You obviously do not know what Christianity is.
Heh. By explaining to you what it was really about, I must have ruined your appreciation for "A Christmas Carol."
Sorry.
OFT says:
"Bah Humbug!!!"
Now, now. I think OFT's objection was to the intimations that "orthodox" Christianity, or "Christians," do not see Christian charity, kindness to the poor, or an embrace of the Beatitudes as "at best secondary or incidental."
Where do you think the concepts came from?
Is Christian charity "the central theme of the Christian religion?," as Brad Hart intimates it should be? No, not exactly. The poor will always be with us, and not solely by accident but by volition as well.
There are other things, we are told, beyond this world. But Christian charity is not possible without the understanding that there are other things beyond this world.
Perhaps OFT should have turned the other cheek, but as a fellow human being, I understand his being annoyed at the insinuation here. Because it was Dickens' Christianity, not his "theistic rationalism," that led him to write "A Christmas Carol."
Most evangelical Christians, like myself, can and do appreciate classic (17th and 18th century) Unitarian influences on our culture (including the themes behind "A Christmas Carol").
That said, there's compelling evidence for Jesus Christ being much more than just a "great moral teacher."
Unitarians tend to pay more attention to the gospels' reports of what Jesus said about how to live and treat others, than they do to what others have said about him.
But let us recall his 1840 letter to the Great Awakening leader George Whitefield:
"You will see in this my notion of good works, that I am far from expecting to merit heaven by them. By heaven we understand a state of happiness, infinite in degree, and eternal in duration. I can do nothing to deserve such rewards. He that, for giving a draft of water to a thirsty person, should expect to be paid with a good plantation, would be modest in his demands, compared with those who think they deserve heaven for the little good they do on earth.">
Tom, if intending to deceive is a logical fallacy, then here is a good example of one, not what I posted from Gouverneur Morris. Logical fallacies are for a courtroom and debate, this isn't a debate, it's to find what the framers believed by their own words, and Morris rejected reason.
Post a Comment