Happy Holidays or Merry Christmas?

The recent flap over Starbucks coffee cups seems like a good occasion to drag out my blog from almost exactly one year ago today. Just about then...

...I was reorganizing our entertainment center when we returned from nineteen months in Las Vegas. I found our collection of Christmas DVDs—movies, TV specials, concerts, etc.

The one on top was a copy of a 1955 Jo Stafford Album. The title song, “Happy Holiday,” was Irving Berlin’s 1942 classic that everybody loves. The second DVD was the 1942 Bing Crosby/Fred Astaire movie, “Holiday Inn,” in which that Irving Berlin classic was introduced. It’s a perennial favorite, along with “It’s a Good Life!”, “Miracle of 34^th Street,” “White Christmas” and—you can finish the list.

In the same box was our collection of Christmas cards dating back who knows how long. We keep them for decorations and gift wrapping. “Season’s Greetings,” is among the most common phrases on the covers of the several dozen cards in that stack.

Call me a “Christmas Freak.” I love just about everything about it, and in the last couple of years I’ve even been able to endure the crowds at the malls without uttering a single “Bah!” or “Humbug!” And the joyful anticipation doesn’t follow a calendar. For me it begins about the time the leaves start turning.

I think I love it because in my personal history it’s always been the “Most Wonderful Time of the Year”—with cousins and “Granny” either spending the holidays with us or us with them. I associate Christmas with family, presents, wonderful food, beautiful music, beautiful decorations and the beautiful story that holds it all together.

The story is paramount. No matter what else happens or doesn’t happen during Advent and the Twelve Days of Christmas that follow, I’m never distracted from the awareness of that beautiful story. It’s always with me, thanks to the foundation laid in my family—a foundation that included regular participation in the Body of Christ. No matter what symbol is displayed, or when or where, I am reminded that Christmas is about the birth of Jesus, and that through that birth, “God is with us!”

Apparently—and sadly—some are unable to avoid the distractions. Those same phrases that for over a half-century elicited happy smiles, warm feelings and even hugs have more recently become “fighting words” to some people.

A few years ago someone suggested that it would be more “inclusive” to use the phrase, “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas”, to acknowledgment that not everyone is Christian and to demonstrate respect for their religious freedom—the same respect we expect and demand for our own religious freedom.

Religious freedom, like every other freedom, must be extended to all, or no one is free, for if freedom can be taken from one, it can be taken from all. Further, religious freedom includes the freedom from having others’ religious faiths inflicted upon us.

The intention was to find ways to include people of other faiths—or at least not to exclude them—in the public celebrations of Christian holidays. Nothing has ever been intended or suggested that would limit religious celebrations shared among family and friends and within specific communities of faith.

But the good old American autonomy that built this nation raises its head (unnecessarily in this case) and asserts, “Nobody’s gonna’ tell me what to do.”

I haven’t experienced the slightest infringement of any rights. I am free to say, “Merry Christmas” any time I choose, and as far as I know you are free to do the same. Nor do I feel anything has been forced upon me if others choose to say, “Happy Holidays” in deference to the religious freedom of those who don’t share their convictions. Indeed, I don’t feel “Happy Holidays” is a condescension at all. That phrase is still a “warm fuzzy” that triggers deep nostalgia and reminds me that Jesus was born.

At what point did “inclusiveness” become bad? At what point did inclusiveness become a liberal conspiracy to take away anyone’s right to say, “Merry Christmas?” At what point did respect for someone who is different from me become a concession to some evil plot to undermine truth? And at what point did the melting pot mentality[1] engraved on the Statue of Liberty morph into intolerance and disrespect for diversity?

As Christians, we are called to share of our faith; and there are effective ways, ineffective ways and counterproductive ways to do so. In the last third of the 20^th century we saw the counterproductive result when too many mainstream churches shied away from face-to-face witnessing at all.

On the other hand, in more recent years much of what is called witnessing is confrontational and does more harm than good. After all, Christianity is an invitational faith, not a coercive one. Jesus said, “If I am lifted up I will draw all people to me.” Too much of what is called witnessing today pushes people away.

So, I will continue to look for ways to make my witness effective, without trampling the rights and freedoms of those who don’t share it. And if my life is being lived such that others don’t know and respect me as a Christian unless I say, “Merry Christmas,” then my witness lacks integrity and credibility. And I have absolutely no need to inflict my faith vocabulary upon those with other faiths or no faith, and thereby run the risk of alienating them from any possibility of witnessing effectively to them in the future.

That leaves me with more than abundant opportunity within my family, my circle of friends and my community of faith—and in the yard decorations in front of my home—to say, “Merry Christmas!”

And that’s the way I see it through the flawed glass that is my world view.

Together in the Walk,

Jim

---

[1] Give me your tired, your poor, 

Your huddled masses, yearning to breath free, 
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore, 
Send these, the homeless, tempest tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.

~ Emma Lazarus

“Politically Correct” Does Not Mean “Theologically Incorrect”

In fact, it doesn't necessarily denote “incorrectness”at all. 

It is true that, as used, politically correct language often is ineffective and even counterproductive. And, yes, it also is used to promote causes with which some people disagree and is used by people with whom partisan adversaries differ. But none of the above disqualifies or credibly challenges its validity or its intent.

The Merriam-Webster online Dictionary defines “Politically Correct” as, “conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated.”

Why would anyone “offend the political sensibilities” of anyone if such offense could be avoided by a simple, easy shift in vocabulary? Of course, in our belligerently partisan culture there are some who are offended that anyone would dare disagree with them. By extension, I suppose they would consider  it politically incorrect to do so.

Wikipedia, the online free dictionary, says political correctness “is a term that refers to language, ideas, or policies that address perceived or actual discrimination against or alienation of politically, socially or economically disadvantaged groups. … These groups most prominently include those defined by gender, race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation and disability.”

The emphasis is on “political, social or economic disadvantage.” In my personal observation, most of those who scorn political correctness also believe social or economic disadvantage is purely and solely the result of personal choice and laziness. Thus, I suppose the logical extension is that political correctness gives credence to poor choices and laziness.

But Wikipedia goes a step further:

“Historically, the term was a colloquialism used in the early-to-mid 20th century by Communists and Socialists in political debates, referring pejoratively to the Communist "party line", which provided for "correct" positions on many matters of politics. The term was adopted in the later 20th century by the New Left, applied with a certain humor to condemn sexist or racist conduct as "not politically correct". By the early 1990s, the term was adopted by US conservatives as a pejorative term for all manner of attempts to promote multiculturalism and identity politics, particularly, attempts to introduce new terms that sought to leave behind discriminatory baggage attached to older ones, and conversely, to try to make older ones taboo..”

Aha! I had no idea that political correctness had such a long history, nor that it seems to have emerged out of communist rhetoric. But at least now I can understand why some people hold political correctness in disdain! “Guilt-by-association” has some limited validity; but to assign a whole category of language to the discard pile because of its origins is a bit over the top.

The Judeo/Christian lexicon is jam-packed with verbiage straight out of pagan worship and ritual! If we were to eliminate all words, phrases and verbal imagery that emerged from questionable sources, our language would be emaciated.

But “conversion” is at the heart of Christianity; thus the Judeo/Christian approach was to take language and verbal imagery from one reality and convert it (redefine it) into specific applications within Judeo/Christian ideology. As political correctness emerged out of Communist and Socialist (or “New Left”) ideologies, the correctness assumed the “party line.” It seems quite plausible that within another socio/political environment it could be converted to that environment’s ideological position.

For example, in the USA, political correctness thus would refer, at least in part, to the American ideals outlined in the preamble to the Constitution: “…to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…” In my estimation, any language or vocabulary that promotes those values is politically correct.

A side trip (hopefully to come back around to the main route): throughout the history of religions, virtually every creed and doctrine was established to eliminate heresy. In other words, historic creeds and doctrines generally are “exclusive.”

As I understand the teachings of Jesus, God’s Grace is “inclusive”—open to all who will receive it—and, by definition, without prerequisite qualifications. Thus, Grace precedes conversion or change; indeed, it is the only source and power by which one can be converted or transformed (cf. Romans 12:2) and is extended to the most undeserving of humanity!

I who have received Grace dare not—DARE NOT—approach another human ungraciously (though I confess to overwhelming failure in that intent! Thus, I stand condemned apart from God’s grace.)

I prefer the term, “inclusive” to “politically correct”. If I am to be a faithful witness to the Grace I have received, I will be careful to use language that does not exclude or overlook anyone. That effort sometimes is a pain in the neck, because we have not derived a suitable personal pronoun to replace “he” or “she”. Most people have resorted to using the plural, “they”, even when the subject is a singular person. The Grammar Nazi in me just won’t allow me to do that! I will intentionally type “he or she” or “he/she” instead. I understand that language progresses, and that my use of language will become (may already be) a relic archived alongside the King James Bible with its Elizabethan, Shakespearean language. I can live with that.

And, while I appreciate the value of traditions, and am not the least offended, for example, by the masculine references in the traditional Doxology (e.g., “Praise Him above, ye Heavenly Hosts!”), what could possibly by offensive about a more inclusive version:

“Praise God, from whom all blessings flow!

Praise God, all creatures here below!

Praise God above, ye heavenly Hosts!

Creator, Christ and Holy Ghost!”

Together in the Walk,

Pastor Jim