Reflections for the 12 Days: Christmas as Problem

“The Holidays,” and most especially Christmas, pose a problem to a great number of people. The reasons are varied: memory of lost loved ones, the scars of unhappy family Christmases past, and, perhaps most widespread, the vaguer sense of never being able to get with the alleged and elusive “spirit” of the season.

Don’t get me wrong; I don’t belong to the “bah, humbug” crowd. I really love Christmas. But it’s simply true that Christmas always threatens to disappoint.

How could it not, granted the excessive hype of the cultural celebration? Mothers trying to create the “perfect” Christmas for their children; husbands looking for the gift for their wives that will unlock that special smile from the heart; children expecting that every Christmas will be even better than the last; the perils of family gatherings.

And so, “Blue Christmas” services have sprung up like mini-oases in the bleak mid-winter for those afraid of too much exposure to songs celebrating “the most wonderful time of the year.” 

Challenges of the Messianic Promise

The problem goes deeper than the Santa-expectations and the tenuous “magic” of the holidays straight into the heart of the Christian story of Jesus’ birth. After all, he was “born to save us from our sins” and sin still abounds mightily. The angel told Mary that he would “sit on the throne of his father David and rule over the house of Israel forever,” which he may well do in heaven, but on the plane of earthly history his life ended on a Roman cross. ‘

The early community's faith, expressed in the Christmas story, was faced the first and second generations with the problem of unfulfilled promise. Where is the promise of his coming?*  they asked—that Coming that would fulfill the promises of the angels, the promises the original disciples had imagined would be fulfilled in Jesus’ own earthly triumph over sin and injustice. As the carol says of the angel’s song: 

   But with the woes of sin and strife/ The world has suffered long;
   Beneath the angel-song have rolled/ Two thousand years of wrong**

Don’t get me wrong: I’m a believer. I really love the Christmas stories. But a proclamation of these stories, and of the gospel itself, in forms too cheerfully magical can lead people to great disappointment. Yes, “Jesus saves,” but miraculous transformations are few and far between. Yes, Jesus is “Lord of all the earth” in the upbeat hymn, but millions of Syrian refugees shiver in the cold this Christmas, and people in the Central African Republic die in droves violently every day.

Whatever else it is, neither the gospel nor the Way of Jesus are a panacea for the world Jesus came to save. If we take the Proclamation of the Angels seriously, we must admit that Christmas is not only promise and problem, but also paradox.

Next: Christmas as Paradox
____
*   2 Peter 3:4
** "It Came Upon the Midnight Clear"by The Rev. Edmund Sears, 1849

Reflections for the Twelve Days of Christmas: First Day

First Day: Christmas as Promise

One of my godson’s kids wrote Santa with a confession and a hope: even though she had been somewhat naughty this year (her younger brother’s fault, entirely), she very much wanted the list of toys attached. Her tone was one of confident trust that Santa would understand her frank confession and fulfill his promise of largesse to children who are Nice. 

Macy’s big holiday advertising campaign centers on “a million reasons to believe.”  Believe in what? Any or all of the following: Savior, Santa, peace, goodwill, the Christmas (or Holiday) spirit. Believe in the manifold promises of the season. 
 
Christmas, even in its secular “Holiday” forms, is all about promises. The promise of a Savior. The promise that St. Nick, Kinderklaus, Santa will come through again to grant wishes.  The promise of “peace, good will toward men.” The promise that if we’re really in the right mood we can tune in to the “spirit” of the season.

Two Ancient Promises

Fair enough, to give the Season its due, for this mood of believing in promises is rooted in two ancient promises. First, the pledge of a Savior “thou shalt call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins . . . and his kingdom will have no end” which gave birth to the Christian celebration. Second, the even older Solstice promise, in the dark of the year, of the return of light and warmth as the days lengthen, which gave birth to the European Winterfest (Solstice, Yule, Saturnalia) in which Christmas itself is nested.

My mother declined to make any absolute promises to us as children, unlike her mother-in-law who promised much and fulfilled, well, some. In reality, our lives do slowly accumulate unfilled promises, small and great. More and more the intensity of the Holiday Season as well as Christmas for Christians seems to me to arise out of our yearning for the fulfillment of promises in the midst of a world where so many of them are either broken or turn out to be ephemeral.

“Silent night, holy night, all is calm, all is bright.”  We yearn.
“Peace on earth, and mercy mild.”  We hope.
“When....shall come the age of gold.”  We want so much to believe.

Santa often comes through for kids, so the promise often works. Believing the Yuletide promise also comes easily, so long as there is food and fuel enough to make it alive until the earth springs green again. The promise of Savior and Peaceable Kingdom are a bigger stretch, granted the state of the world and the human soul. Yet the message of the angels is not just a promise, but a challenge: believe. 

On this the fate of the world may well depend.   

Next: Christmas as Problem

Secession, by Another Name

South Carolina just made the political crisis over the Affordable Care Act (ACA) crystal clear: this is Secession by another name. Their State House of Representatives proposes making any step to implement the Act a punishable crime. This goes along with a new far-right campaign to label ACA itself "criminal."

“Secession,” this time around, is a rebellious refusal to abide by the fundamental rules of the Republic. South Carolina, the Tea Party Caucus, and, for the moment, the Congressional GOP leadership don't want to leave the Union literally. They simply refuse to honor the Constitution’s method of creating and implementing law. Congress passed ACA; the Supreme Court upheld it; it is the law of the land. Democracy in the U.S. means that the majority rules.

If you don't like this, you work to change the mind of the majority, and get legislators elected who represent you. If they gain majority power in Congress, you may get to change the law. Neither States nor political parties get to pick and choose which laws they will honor. That’s the way the United States work.

Unless people secede from the social contract, and secede from honoring the Constitutional set-up.

Replaying an old tape

This stubborn refusal to recognize the validity of a Federal law thrives particularly in the South, but don’t imagine the secession impulse has ever been limited to the South. In the early Republic, New England muttered threats to secede more than once in response to the Southern slavocracy’s demands. North and South struggled to see whose vision of the American future would prevail. Now GOP controlled states in other parts of the country, both west and north, play virtual secession to one degree or another. They bandy about the word itself with varying degrees of seriousness. 

We’ve been here before; the tactics are familiar: states reject any Federal law that doesn’t suit them. State’s Rights trump Federal authority.  So great was the split over slavery it took a war to decide which view would prevail. If you don’t like “secession,” call it “insurrection.” Whatever you call it, it ain’t politics as usual.

No shooting war is at hand. The tactic now is refusal to govern. This is not the usual "gridlock." It is a Constitutional crisis not unlike the one in 1860-61. Objections to the Affordable Care Act cloak the real issue: the authority of Federal institutions—and, alas, which man is President. Obama is the new Lincoln, a President one sector of the country refuses to tolerate.

But, one might say, these folks simply demand the right to uphold their conscience-driven convictions. That was, of course, exactly the point of the secessionist movement of 1860-61 that led to what the rebels called "The War of Northern Aggression."

In any case, the future of the Republic hangs on how this crisis is resolved.

Syria, Sarin and Moral Indignation

Moral indignation seems to be everywhere as we consider wading (further) into the Syrian civil war.

The Left fulminates over Obama-Peace-Laureate proposing war; the Administration inveighs against chemical weapons; the Tea Party finds anything Obama says or does outrageous; and the pundits practice indignation over either (choose one):  a) America’s growing isolationist mood and indifference to innocent suffering; b) America’s eagerness to be the world’s policeman

As a sure sign of feeling morally right, indignation allows us to build up energy for a fight with those we know are morally wrong, those other guys who don’t see things as clearly as we do. When we’re in fight mode we can enjoy the really great feeling of “moral clarity,” in which all the ambiguities resolve themselves into crystal-sharp black and white. The Secretary of State’s moral outrage index over the death of innocents knows no bounds as he leads the drummers ramping us up toward our “limited, targeted” bombing. 

Ignoring Moral Complexity

To be honest, I don’t know what the wisest course might be for Superpower America to take, so this blog isn’t about any “right” way to go. Bombing or no bombing, tragic things will happen; either way promises “innocent deaths.” But little, if any, moral clarity seems apparent. Consider:

+    Chemical killing outrages, but “ordinary” killing only saddens, it would seem. Assad is a monster, chemical weapons abominable, but our use of Agent Orange, phosphorus bombs, and depleted uranium bombshells in war doesn’t qualify as morally out-of-bounds.

+    The Assad regime provides the main bulwark of protection not only for the Shi’ite Alawites, but for the Christians of Syria. But the democracy we imagine will be better for all will make both minorities lethally vulnerable to Sunni.

+    All the talk of innocent deaths and “red lines” against chemical weapons (deliberately?) leaves out vital geo-political factors that  make the Syrian conflict a "proxy" war for a regional Sunni/ Shi'ite struggle. This pits Sunni Arabia and the Iraqi Sunnis against Shi'ite Iran, the Iraqi Shi'ites, and the ruling Shi'ia Alawites of Syria. The Saudis and the Iranians struggle over who will dominate the whole region, and deliver oil and  natural gas to the world as well—a matter of no little concern to the U.S.

Toward a Humbler Wisdom

To cite all this is to spoil the excitement of moral indignation, of course. An equal opportunity employer, moral outrage brings pleasure to Left, Right, and Center. The danger, however, is what the Greeks called hubris, overweening pride and self-justifying zeal, whether if be the zeal of the pacifist who would keep us out of war and let the other guys go on killing each other, or of the hawk who would ride in on a white horse to save the innocent.  

I’m certainly not any friend of the Assad regime. The prospect of chemical warfare really frightens. So why muddy the waters with these musings and misgivings?

Perhaps it's because in situations so complex and tragic as this, our only choices are between greater and lesser evils. To realize this clearly might foster humbler and wiser, albeit less morally exciting, decisions.

Untruth and Its Consequences

Almost half a century ago, one of my seminary professors, Dr. Norman Pittenger, opined that society would suffer much less from a loosening of pre-marital sexual mores than from a widespread breakdown in truth-telling. He was speaking at the dawning of the sexual revolution of the 60s, and we’re living in the full glare of the deception and disinformation revolution of the past decade at too many levels of our society.

Credit is tightening in China because few banks can trust the published financial data of other banks—exactly the same situation the U.S. faced in 2008. Their own published data is false, so why trust anybody else's?  The wonder gadgets on Cable TV are surrounded by an avalanche of consumer complaints about false promises.

Fox News, of course, by claiming to be “fair and balanced,” has turned the phrase into a cynical joke.
“Oh, yeah?” I can hear my right-wing cousin say, “and just why should I trust your sources?”  Dr. Pittenger’s point exactly: all too often today, you don’t know who or what to trust.   

Truth in Politics?

Conservative politicians go about crying alarm about the deficit rising at a time when it is actually coming down, and that is but the beginning of misinformation. The Republican party is still fine-tuning its “image makeover for minorities” while it works, in state after state, to restrict access to voting for minorities.

It’s little wonder, therefore, that New Jersey governor Chris Christie told GOP leaders in Boston this week that he’s “going to do anything I need to win,” and that they’d better follow his example instead of letting the far right dominate the party. “We are political operation and need to win.”

While, from my viewpoint, “I’ll do anything, say anything, promise anything to win” is marginally more a GOP tactic than a Democrat one, Mr. Christie’s statement seems to describe all too well the nature of most political rhetoric today, left, right or center. “Spin” we’ve had with us always, but today’s politics are replete with misinformation, disinformation, and downright lies. Worse yet, we seem to expect it, and some pundits seem to rate performance skill and image manipulation as more important than truth.

Those "Negative" Commandments

I’ve heard people complain that the Ten Commands are “so negative; they are always telling you what not to do.”  We may be living in one of those recurrent eras where we are destined to learn, with regret, why there are some things that, if not restrained by “thou shalt nots” will undermine society.  The Torah says “Thou shalt not bear false witness” and the Buddha taught us that “Right Speech” means being simple and directly truthful to ourselves and to others.

My aforementioned cousin is fond of sending out internet blasts full of right-wing misinformation: about Obama, Social Security, and, most especially, Muslims. But he's also a devout Pentecostal Christian, so I've challenged him again and again about the "bear no false witness" commandment. He ignores the issue resolutely.

Such rules and moral maxims are like rails for the trolley. Violate them too much and the trolley comes off the track.  And the truth-telling has to begin with each of us.

The Sodom Syndrome and a Fee-for-Service World

I was shocked to discover that the business class upgrade one of my Israel pilgrims wanted was going to cost over $5000. The upgrade cost more than the pilgrimage itself. But that was before I caught up with how the airlines are embodying the yawning gap between the wealthy and the rest of us.

Up in Business or First Class space abounds, great meals (or as great as they can get on an airplane) are served, and private compartments are available on some flights for more than $5000.  Back in Economy, what a New York Times article recently called “the new steerage” the seats are crowded together and it’s often “fee for service” all the way, even for a bottle of water. That’s in addition to paying extra on top of your ticket price to check a bag. Frontier Airlines even charges a fee for you to store your carry-on in the overhead bins. 

Of course, all this used to be included in the ticket fee, but then you got treated as a person. Now it’s overtly nickel-and-dime, or rather five-ten-twenty-fifty or more dollars all the way.  Fee for service: the monetizing and commodifying of everything, and the disappearance of even the semblance of hospitality—unless, of course, you pay that $5000 extra for Business Class. Up there you get treated like a guest—something that, once upon a time, prevailed to some degree throughout the plane.  

The "Sodom Syndrome"

The rabbinical legends that about the economic practices of Sodom and Gomorrah continue to illuminate, for me, the moral quality of societies in which such rapacious and feral marketplace customs replace the more humane customs of mutuality that treat people as souls rather than mere economic integers: the “Sodom syndrome.” I mentioned an ancient rabbinical joke too complex to relate in a recent blog about the sin cities, and got requests to relate it. This fee-for-service howl is a perfect venue, so here it is. The joke is  a grim one:  

Eliezar, Abraham's servant, goes to visit Lot's family in Sodom. A bystander hits Eliezar on the forehead with a rock till it bleeds because he gave alms to a beggar, contrary to the city's economic code. The assailant then demands that Eliezar pay him for the "service of (medical) bloodletting." Eliezar refuses, saying he was the victim. The Sodomite hauls him into court to make him pay, and the judge declares the assailant deserves payment for the medical service. Eliezar pulls a rock out of his robe, hits the judge on the forehead, causing blood to flow, then says, "Now you owe me a fee for my medical service. Use what you would have paid me to compensate my assailant." 

Soul-Less Commerce

In the ancient near East, commerce was often surrounded by hospitality. The shopkeeper wanted to drive a hard bargain, as did the customer, but it took place after sipping tea and having pleasant conversation, and there was a fairly set style of courteous conversation, even as buyer and seller tried to gain the advantage. All of this had, apparently, disappeared in Sodom and Gomorrah, and the rabbis use their tales and jokes to condemn such a soul-less, inhumane marketplace. When profit is God, soul shrivels.

And steerage passengers pay for the privilege of carrying luggage.

Living Wage as "Handout" (and the Sin of Sodom)

Fast-food workers and others in minimum wage employment are staging one-day walk-outs demanding $15 an hour as a “living wage.”  Some are seeking unionization.

Listening to a radio news report about an walk-out at Alaska’s major airport by baggage handlers, I heard an astonishingly hard-hearted (and pea-brained) comment by a management spokesperson.  “I have nothing against unions,” she said, “but I do object to free handouts, and that’s what $15 an hour would be. These people have got to deserve that much money. They should go to school, upgrade their skills, so that they’re worth $15 an hour.”

As Barbara Ehrenreich showed ten years ago in her Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America, it’s virtually impossible to maintain an apartment, let alone buy a house on a minimum wage salary.  Exactly how, I wondered, are people working minimum wage jobs going to have enough money to get the education to increase their skills when they can hardly afford housing? The days of street-sweeper to senior partner are long gone in America.

The management lady voices the attitude of too many people who have “made it” in America: “I’ve got mine; what’s wrong with you that you don’t have yours?” I suspect that most people who feel that $15 per hour is a “handout” for fast-food workers have never had to work minimum wage jobs since their high-school spending-money days. Free handouts? “Fat lot she knows,” I muttered to myself.

The Social Sins of Sodom

Doing research for last Sunday’s Old Testament lesson on Sodom and Gomorrah I ran across some biblical and rabbinical teachings about the two infamous cities that resonate all too chillingly with the "no handout" privileged, who live so high up on the world mountain they can’t see the valley clearly at all.

Sodom was said to have many "detestable" sins, gang-rape of both men and women among them. It was the symbolic epitome of the corrupt city, but far and away the worse sin, for the rabbis, was just this haughty “I don’t believe in handouts” attitude toward the poor.  The rabbis say that Sodom’s motto was “What’s mine is mine and what’s yours is yours.” Forget about the common good. Their interpretation is based on Ezekiel, who describes Sodom’s “arrogance, gluttonous luxury, idleness, neglect of poor and needy” (Ezek. 16:49). The rabbis say Sodom actually punished people who helped the poor, much as many American cities are passing laws against feeding the homeless, including “health” regulations that effectively shut down church soup kitchens. 

The rabbis tell a tale about one of Lot’s daughters (whose unfortunate sisters were later gang-raped by ruffians desiring to brutalize the three mysterious male wayfarers in the Genesis tale) being put to death for giving money to a beggar. No handouts, no way!  They also tell a joke, too complicated to relate here, about how everything had become fee-for-service in this wealthy city built on the labor of low-income people and home to the festering poor.

I can’t be absolutely sure what the ancient rabbis would say about some of the current political trends in the U.S., but I’ve got a pretty good idea.