Syncretism and Christmas

There was an article in USA Today on December 10 based on a recent Pew religious survey that had some statistics from the survey on current U.S. religious beliefs. The findings included things like 1 in 5 Roman Catholics and 1 in 4 of the overall population believe in reincarnation, about 1 in 4 believe in astrology, and 65% have incorporated some elements of far eastern or New Age beliefs into their thinking. This mixing of contradictory beliefs is called syncretism, and it is nothing new even though the article seems to think it is.

This subject tends to come up at Christmas time because of the mixture of various Christian and non-Christian elements in our Christmas traditions. Things like Christmas trees have roots in pagan traditions in Europe, along with mistletoe, lights, and yule logs. There is also the often crass commercialism of the holidays that stands in stark contrast to the baby born in poverty on that first Christmas. The Pilgrims forbade things like Christmas trees along with overt feasting, feeling that it detracted from the spiritual significance of the day.

I think syncretism has always been a cause for concern, though I am not overly concerned about the Christmas traditions. Nowadays I am concerned about what I see as an easy acceptance by many Christians of things like abortion, homosexuality, and unmarried co-habitation whle at the same time ignoring things like the meaning of baptism, the Lord's supper, and personal holiness. While this is not an incorporation of different religions into Christianity, it is an incorporation of godlessness into their lives and a willful ignoring of anything beyond the very basics of the faith.
This is not exactly syncretism but it is a weakening of the faith in a manner similar to syncretism. And I have no doubt that there are also some who are so ignorant of the faith that they mindlessly include new age, eastern, and other beliefs in their beliefs as well as simple godlessness.

Christmas trees, lights, yule logs, and such do not bother me, though. Perhaps if I had been living at a time when those things were done by pagans who later converted I would have been more concerned. In those days, many centuries ago, the practices would have been associated directly with non-Christian beliefs. But these things have been practiced by serious believers for so long and their meaning so thoroughly re-interpreted (or co-opted some would say) that they do not carry pagan connotations any longer. Indeed, the Islamic world would no doubt reject them because they are so thoroughly associated with Christians.

Syncretism is and always has been an issue for Chritianity, but today it is not Christmas trees that should cause concern.

Visions

In the sermon at our church this past Sunday the topic was Joseph and the announcement to him of Jesus birth by an angelic vision, convincing him to go ahead and take Mary as his wife despite her pregnancy. It is easy for me to relate to the idea that it would take something very dramatic to convince a man to go ahead with a marriage when he finds his betrothed to be pregnant, so the idea of God doing something very convincing is not hard to understand. However, visions seemed to be a thing that God used more often in Biblical times than we see now. We get detailed vision stories with Peter and Paul in Acts, one regarding 'unclean' foods and taking the Gospel to the Gentiles and the other for Paul's conversion. Paul mentions other visions later, being caught up to 'the third heaven'. There are many instances in the Old Testament.



One point in the sermon was that in undeveloped countries, especially where the Bible is banned or most people cannot read, missionaries sometimes meet people who claim to have heard about Jesus in a vision before the missionary arrived and are prepared to accept Christianity when the missionary shows up. This has been heard in a fair number of instances in these kinds of countries but not in developed countries where the Bible is readily available.



Jews were different for their day in that literacy was more common than in many countries because of their being 'people of the book', where the Torah was revered. But, we don't know much about Joseph, and don't really know if he could read. However, even if he could read the materials for writing were very expensive and most ordinary folks would not have any written material in their home. That would be all the more true in a backwater village like Nazareth. If their local synagogue were financially able to have a Torah scroll, it would normally have only one and it was very precious. Even for 'people of the book', having the scripture in the home was prohibitively expensive. Even after Gutenberg made printing more affordable, it wasn't until the industrial revolution with its mechanized papermaking that Bibles in every home could be practical. That would be 17 centuries later than Joseph.



I lose sight of things like that today, with our low cost access to all things written. Visions make a lot more sense to me, however, in the context of a time when very few could read and even those who could would go through life in most cases without ever having a written document in their own home.

Do You Hear What I Hear?

When I was in the 5th grade at Pleasant Run Elementary school, I heard something new. As far as Christmas music was concerned, I had grown up with shape note music at a country church, with Gene Autry on the radio singing about Rudolph, with Alvin and the Chipmunks, and with American Bandstand playing things like Bobby Helms 'Jingle Bell Rock' and Elvis' 'Blue Christmas'. Just before we moved to the suburbs in the summer between 4th and 5th grade, we did a concert trip at Washington Elementary school in Camp Washington to see the Cincinnati Symphony and ballet do 'The Nutcracker', but that was not everyday fare for me. At church we did the usual hymns like 'Silent Night' but not with a choir, and with a distinct 'country' sound. So when my teacher in 5th grade played 'Do You Hear What I Hear' and 'Little Drummer Boy' from a brand new album release performed by the Harry Simeon Chorale I was stunned. I just had never heard anything quite like that before. I thought it was the grandest music I had ever heard.



I like a wide range of music. My collection of Christmas music covers country, classical, pop, and jazz. I like it all. But it wouldn't be Christmas without choirs. There is still nothing quite like it. I don't like most of what our church high school choir does, because it mostly isn't really choir music. It is rock n roll in disguise. Choirs don't really do rock n roll. At least, they don't do it well. To catch the magic of a choir at Christmas, it needs to be SATB parts at least; maybe more parts than that. And the music needs to be majestic. It can still be fun like 'Children Go Where I send Thee', but it needs to be majestic. Adult choirs do that best.



I have been to 2 choir performances so far this year, with one more 2 days from now. It's great. And Christmas just wouldn't be the same without it.

The Incarnation and Bodily Life

As Christmas nears it is a good time to ponder the significance of the Incarnation, God becoming man. The December issue of First Things reviewed a new book titled Body, Soul, and Human Life: The Nature of Humanity in the Bible which tries to address some of the findings of neuroscience and how bodily problems (spine damage, Alzheimers, chemical imbalance) can seemingly change a person dramatically. The book reaffirms that we are not souls that happen to have a body, but we are thoroughly integrated, embodied creatures in which body, soul, and spirit are all critical. This is my greatest disagreement with the Grace Walk folks, who insist that we are souls that just happen to have a body. Not so. The Incarnation of Christ is one important part of understanding this.

This is not to say that our mortal bodies are not fallen. They are. And as Paul pointed out, this mortal must put on immortality to be worthy of being in the immediate presence of God, so it must be changed. Christ demonstrates this for us. He took on mortal flesh, to fully experience our bodily existence, and in His resurrection demonstrated how it must change. His body changed so much that the Emmaus road disciples did not recognize him even though his wounds remained visible. But even in His resurrecton He maintained His connection with us, with a body. And in all the Biblical discussion of eternity with God it is clear that our life will be bodily, but in a new body. Bodily existence is integral to our existence, and it will always be so.

This has lots of implications for mortal life. One reason that 'two becoming one' in marriage includes bodily union is that our bodies are integral to who we are. Marriages in which there is no bodily union are candidates for annulment in the Catholic church for that reason, and that is grounds for divorce in public law as a result of this even though secular philosophy would probably no longer acknowledge this. A marriage without bodily union denies a fundamental part of our identity. This is one reason that Paul in his writing on marriage warns against staying apart for more than short periods of time. In death, one reason we treat the body with respect even after the spirit and soul have departed is in recognition that this was an integral part of the person during life. It is also why recreational sex and promiscuity is a serious sin: it violates the sanctity of the total person and is not just 'something your body does' as if your body is separate from the real you. It is also a reason why homosexuality is fundamentally disordered: it violates the fundamental reality of who we are as people who were intended for 'one flesh' marriage with the opposite gender. Our bodies are in many ways integral to who we are. Pope John Paul wrote about this much more completely in his Theology of the Body (which could be on my Christmas list, for anyone so inclined!), but at Christmas as we ponder the coming of God in the flesh it is a good time to ponder if we are treating our flesh as the Creator intended.