|
F e a t u r e A r t i c l e
THE ANTICHRIST AT THE MANGER
By T.L.FRAZIER
|
This Rock
Volume 4, Number 12
 December 1993 
|
|
|
CHRISTMAS is when the Church confesses the
shocking scandal of the Incarnation. It is the scandal that the Second
Person of the Trinity, the only Son of God, true God from true God
and one in being with the Father, became flesh and dwelt among us
(John 1:14). As a witness to this profound mystery, Christmas has
rightly held a lofty place among the feasts of Christendom.
Hans Urs von Balthasar suggests that heresy, beginning with Gnosticism
in the first century, often has its roots in some denial of the Incarnation,
in creating a dualistic divorce of flesh and spirit. This is the great
stumbling stone. It's so much simpler to enthrone Christ as the supreme
spiritual being up in the celestial realms or to revere him as another
wise teacher of moral precepts, but God and man simultaneously? This
is a hard saying; who can accept it?
Difficulties notwithstanding, the Incarnation is for Christians the
very measure of orthodoxy. Thus it's not at all puzzling why sectarians
such as the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Armstrongites, who deny this
revealed truth, aren't particularly fond of Christmas. Indeed, a Jehovah's
Witness can be disfellowshiped for celebrating the holiday, utterly
cut off from friends and family. Yet there are even some within Protestantism
(Jimmy Swaggart comes to mind), who gladly bear with Catholics the
"scandal" that the child born of the Virgin is "Immanuel,"
or "God with us" (Is. 7:14), but who are ambivalent toward
the celebration of Christmas itself because of the holiday's supposed
"pagan" overtones. Still there is one thing that tends to
unite those who do and those who decline to celebrate Christmas: a
regrettable ignorance about the origins and meaning of the season.
Like the Jews, the early Christians saw time as something sanctified
by God, and they too developed a liturgical calendar. For example,
we know from a controversy involving Polycarp (70-156) that the feast
of Easter was regularly celebrated at least as early as the second
century. Polycarp was the bishop of Smyrna who, Irenaeus (130-202)
tells us, had "known [the apostle] John and others who had seen
the Lord." He had traveled to Rome toward the end of his life
to persuade Pope Anicetus to adopt the practice of the churches in
Asia Minor of celebrating Easter on the fourteenth of the Jewish month
of Nisan (the "quartodeciman" date). One of the problems
with this was that the fourteenth of Nisan doesn't regularly fall
on a Sunday, and the rest of the Church insisted on celebrating Easter
on the day of the week the Lord had risen. During the pontificate
of Pope Victor I (189-198), the dispute became so heated that he threatened
to excommunicate all of Asia Minor over the issue.
Early Christian worship often used the customs and symbols associated
with the paganism around it. One instance: The fish was a symbol of
fertility in the ancient world and of eroticism in particular for
the Romans. This pagan symbol became one of the most important symbols
of the Church, the Greek word for "fish," ichthus,
becoming a condensed confession of the faith. The five Greek letters
are an acrostic of the statement, "Iesous Christos Theou
Huios Soter," which translates as "Jesus Christ,
Son of God, Savior."
Court ceremonies were adopted for the Christian liturgy, sending the
message to the pagan world that Christ was its true emperor. Since
the days of Nero emperors had been employing the term kurios,
a Greek word meaning "Lord," as a distinctive title to promote
the cult of emperor worship. Domitian (emperor from 81-96) had himself
declared "Lord and god" (Greek: kurios kai theos;
cf. John 20:28), and from then on the title became a favorite of the
emperors. In contrast, Christians made a point of renaming the Roman
"Day of the Sun" (Dies Solis, Latin for "Sunday")
as kuriakos hemera (Greek for "the Lord's Day";
cf. Rev. 1:10), just as "July" had been dedicated to Julius
Caesar and "August" to Augustus Caesar. The point was lost
on no one and fueled tensions between the Christians and pagans.
The confrontational posture which Christianity adopted toward paganism
is found behind the feast of Christmas as well. It was customary in
the Hellenistic world to celebrate publicly the birthdays of important
people such as emperors and princes, much as we do today with President's
Day. Christians couldn't very well observe the birthdays of dead emperors
while neglecting the risen Lord. What sort of witness would that give
the unbelieving world? Not only that, but a celebration of the birth
of Christ would fortify the Church against heretics like the Gnostics,
who denied that Jesus was a historical, embodied personage.
The problem, though, was that the exact day of Christ's birth was
unknown, so a date on which to celebrate it had to be chosen arbitrarily.
Now the pagans already had a fixed festal schedule, so any day of
the year the Church chose to celebrate a feast would be a day of some
pagan celebration. Here was an opportunity for the Church to confront
paganism, and so it aimed at one of the biggest and most important
cults in Rome. The day chosen was December 25, when everyone celebrated
the pagan feast of the dies natalis Solis Invicti, "the
birthday of the Unconquerable Sun."[Though the Church doesn't
claim that Jesus was actually born on December 25, opponents of Christmas
spill considerable ink arguing that Christ couldn't have been born
at this time. The reason is because of credulous people like Setsuko,
"a devout Catholic for 36 years." This Japanese woman, now
a Jehovah's Witness, relates, "It was painful to be faced with
Bible truths that refuted my beliefs. I even had alopecia neurotica,
loss of hair due to being upset. Gradually, however, the light of
truth shone into my heart. I was stunned to learn that Jesus could
not have been born in a cold, rainy December, when shepherds would
not be tending their sheep out in the open night (Luke 2:8-12).
It shattered my image of the Nativity, for we had used cotton wool
as snow to decorate scenes of sheep and shepherds" (Awake!,
December 15, 1991, 7). But Setsuko presumably knows better now, the
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society having explained to her that "Jesus
died at the time of the Jewish Passover, which commenced April 1,
33 C.E. [Actually, it occurred on April 3, 33, not April 1.] Moreover,
Luke 3:21-23 informs us that Jesus was about 30 years of age when
he commenced his ministry. Since this lasted three-and-a-half years,
he was about 33-and-a-half years old at the time of his death. Christ
would have been a full 34 years old six months later, which would
thus be about October 1. If we count back to see when Jesus was born,
we reach not December 25 or January 6, but October 1 of the year 2
B.C.E." ( The Watchtower, December 15, 1990, 4).
Assuming that Jesus didn't die on April 7 or 8 in 30 (as scholars
suggest), and that he began his ministry precisely on his thirtieth
birthday and not a few months later, and that his ministry lasted
exactly three and a half years to the day, this theory could sound
plausible--but still iffy.].
December 25 arrives around the time of the winter solstice, when the
days get shorter and the sun seems to be "dying." After
the winter solstice, the sun appears to regain its strength, is "born
again" as it were, as the days become longer. Consequently, December
25 was the "birthday" of the Persian sun-god known as Mithras,
originally one of the lesser demigods of the Zoroastrian religion.
Mithras had become the principal Persian deity by 400 B.C.
and his cult quickly overran Asia Minor. According to Plutarch, it
was introduced into the West around 68 B.C., and became quite
popular among the Roman legions.
Unlike those of other Oriental gods introduced into the Empire, the
cult of Mithras remained independent of official foundations to finance
and propagate it. Its followers worshiped in small groups in subterranean
shrines where the clergy employed special effects to make Mithras
appear to "manifest" himself among the congregation. Such
artifice, which included fireworks, special lighting and mechanical
devices, rarely disappointed the religion's adherents and provided
Christian polemicists with some of their best material.
The conflict between Christianity and Mithraism had always been intense,
possibly because of certain similarities between the two. The devotees
of sun worship tended to be monotheistic. The cult stressed a personal
experience of worship, though it excluded women. Originally, as a
Zoroastrian demigod, Mithras personified justice and redemption. Later
on, as part of a "mystery religion," he came to embody all
that was good which warred against evil. Mithraism had rituals that
included a kind of baptism, a strong code of moral conduct, and the
promise of an afterlife.
Christians, for their part, called Christ the "Sun of Righteousness"
from the prophecy of the Resurrection in Malachi 4:2-3: "But
for you who revere my name, the sun of righteousness will rise with
healing in its wings. And you will go out and leap like calves released
from the stall. Then you will trample down the wicked; they will be
ashes under the soles of your feet on the day when I do these things,
says the Lord Almighty."
Inspired by Ezekiel 43:1-2, which speaks of the glory of the Lord
coming from the east, Christians believed the Second Coming would
be from the east whence comes the sun rising to dispel the darkness.
After all, the world was in darkness till Christ, the light of the
world, expelled the night. Consequently, Christians prayed toward
the east on Sunday mornings, with crosses being painted on the eastern
wall of house-churches.[One such cross was found in a house in
the city of Herculaneum, which was buried in A.D. 79 by the eruption of Mount Vesuvius. Tertullian, writing around 197
in his Apology, talks about Christians "praying in the
direction of the rising sun."]. When churches were built to accommodate
Christian worship, these were also oriented toward the east. Christians
were even buried facing the east in expectation of the final Trump.
By the second half of the third century, the cults of the classical
gods were on the wane and paganism sought an infusion of new life
from the Oriental cults. Thus Emperor Aurelian officially established
worship of a Roman version of a sun god, under the name of Sol Invictus,
as the principal cult of the empire on December 25, 274, after his
victory over Zenobia, queen of Palmyra. He built a huge temple for
Sol Invictus on the Campus Martius in Rome and made December 25 a
national holiday.[Edwin Yamauchi cautions against too close an
identification between Mithras and Sol Invictus: "The close identification
of Mithras with the sun is seen in his titular, Deo Soli Invicto
Mithrae, and its variations. . . . While Mithras was closely identified
with Sol Invictus, it was the latter that was formally recognized
and not the former. Mithras never appears on imperial coins. The sole
public example of imperial devotion to Mithras is the dedication by
Diocletian at Carnuntum in 307. Mithraism was a competitor of Christianity.
. . . But Mithraism was not as potent a rival as the cult of Sol Invictus"
(Persia and the Bible [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990], 519). While
Mithraism may have taken a back seat to Sol Invictus, still it grew
to such an extent that, by the time of Constantine's conversion, there
were fifty Mithraic temples in Rome alone(Desmond O'Grady,Caesar,
Christ, & Constantine: A History of the Early Church in Rome[Huntington:
Our Sunday Visitor, 1991], 20.)]. But Providence had different plans
for the empire
.
After Constantine's battle for the Milvian Bridge on October 28, 312,
which delivered Rome into his hands, and the Edict of Toleration in
February 313, the pagans witnessed the previously "divine"
emperor kneeling before the true "Lord and God." Christ
was now ascendent, having vanquished Sol Invictus in the battle for
supremacy in the empire. As expressed in a fourth-century work, De
solistitiis et aequinoctiis, concerning Christ's "Unconquerable
Birth": "Who is as unconquered as our Lord, who overcame
and conquered death?" And although the cult lingered on (Augustine
would later speak of the crying and shouting of the pagans on December
25), Sol Invictus was doomed to fade into permanent eclipse. Not even
Julian "the Apostate," Constantine's nephew who came to
the throne in 361, was able to re-impose paganism on the Empire, try
though he did.
Unlike the battle for the Milvian Bridge, the battle for religious
supremacy was not to be won overnight, especially in the rural areas
where paganism was most entrenched. In the first half of the fourth
century the worship of the Sol Invictus was the last great pagan cult
the Church had to conquer, and it did so in part with the establishment
of Christmas, which proclaimed that "when the fullness of the
time came, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman" (Gal. 4:4).
At the head of the Deposition Martyrum of the so-called Roman Chronograph
of 354 (the Philocalian Calendar) there is listed the natus Christus
in Betleem Judaeae ("the birth of Christ in Bethlehem of
Judea") as being celebrated on December 25. The Deposition was
originally composed in 336, so Christmas dates back at least that
far.
The most pressing issue within the Church in the fourth century was
its conflict with Arianism, which denied the divinity of Christ and
thus the Incarnation. This long and bitter conflict, as well as that
with the Nestorians [This heresy is named after the fifth-century
patriarch of Constantinople who denied that the Virgin Mary could
be called the "Mother of God," instead asserting she could
only be the mother of Christ's human nature, not his divinity. Not
comprehending that a mother gives birth to a person and not a nature
(in this case, the divine Second Person of the Trinity), he essentially
claimed that Mary bore only a man loosely united to God, not the single
and undivided Second Person who became God and man simultaneously
at the Incarnation. Significantly, Nestorius chose to attack Mary's
divine maternity for the first time in a homily on Christmas Day 428.]
later on, influenced the contents of the Christmas feast. Pope Leo
the Great, combatting Arians (as well as Manichaeans) in the fifth
century, seems the first to speak explicitly of Christmas as a celebration
of the Incarnation, [Augustine, fifty years earlier, saw Christmas
simply as a commemoration of a historical event, not as the celebration
of a mystery (a revealed truth surpassing full comprehension) such
as Easter. Still, while Leo may have been the first explicitly to
connect Christmas to the Incarnation, it seems more than mere coincidence
that the Church's primary feast celebrating this mystery arose alongside
Arianism at the beginning of the fourth century. One suspects a connection
between the two], thus using Christmas as a bulwark against heresy.
During the Protestant Reformation, while much of northern Europe and
England were arbitrarily throwing out "Romanist inventions,"
one of the things that needed "reforming" was the liturgical
calendar, along with many of the traditional customs that went with
the feasts. It had been common to sing carols throughout the year
on various feast days, especially processional songs honoring the
saints associated with Christmas. The Reformation frowned upon carols
and labeled them "papist" and superstitious. The Protestant
monarchy of England banned all caroling except for at Christmas.
The Puritans outlawed Christmas itself when they came to power in
England in 1642. Celebrating Christmas was considered evidence of
"anti-religious," Royalist sentiment. The Puritans were
none-too-pleased that December 25 had been associated with Sol Invictus,
and they suspected there were other dubious elements attached to the
season as well. Harsh penalties were exacted for celebrating the holiday
or even for staying home that day. The Puritans in New England banned
Christmas as well; although the ban was eventually lifted, Christmas
did not become a legal holiday in America until 1856.
Denunciations of "paganism" are still common from sects
which have imbibed this heritage. Some are unabashedly bombastic in
their trashing of Christmas, a 400-year-old puritanical tradition
seemingly unhindered and unadulterated by progress. We are loudly
informed that the customs of merrymaking and exchanging gifts have
their real origin not in the rejoicing of the angels before the shepherds
and in the gifts given by the Magi, but in the pagan festival of Saturnalia
which was celebrated from December 17 to 24.
The lights and greenery are said to come from the Roman New Year of
Kalends with its solar associations. It has even been maintained that
"feasting and fellowship" were introduced by Teutonic Yule
rites, as though feasting and fellowship were unknown to Christians
before the conversion of the Teutonic tribes (cf. Acts 2:42, 46)! [See
the Awake! (a Jehovah's Witnesses' publication) articles for
December 22, 1992 (8-9), December 8, 1991 (12-13), December 22, 1990
(14), December 8, 1989 (13-16), and December 8, 1988 (17-19). The
whole of their rejection of Christmas is based on pagan precursors
to certain Christmas customs. This hostile attitude hasn't always
been the case with this sect. A former member of the Governing Body
of Jehovah's Witnesses, Raymond Franz, has reproduced in his latest
book a rare photograph showing Judge Rutherford, the sect's second
president, and the rest of the Bethel staff celebrating Christmas
in 1926, complete with tinsel, wreaths, and presents (In Search
of Christian Freedom [Atlanta: Commentary Press, 1991], 149).
It should be noted that this was seven years after Jesus Christ supposedly
chose the Watch Tower Society as the only "untainted" organization
on earth through which he would channel all religious truth]. Thus
merrymaking, exchanging gifts, greenery, lights, feasting, and fellowship
are all suspect because of their previous association with paganism,
as if melancholy, selfishness, drabness, fasting, and anti-social
withdrawal, the antitheses of these "pagan" customs, would
be more appropriate for celebrating the birth of the Savior.
When the Pharisees criticized Jesus' disciples for feasting and merrymaking,
Jesus replied, "Can you make the guests of the bridegroom fast
while he is with them? But the time will come when the bridegroom
will be taken away from them; in those days they will fast" (Luke
5:34-35). Accordingly the Church feasts and makes merry at Christmas
as Christ enters the world, and it fasts during Lent, preparing for
his leaving it on Good Friday.
The popular myth concerning the pagan origin of Christmas trees exemplifies
this puritanical phobia. In reality the Christmas tree tradition is
derived from the Paradise tree, which was adorned with apples on December
24 in honor of Adam and Eve, whose transgression is reversed by the
coming of Jesus, the Second Adam (Rom. 5:12-19), on the next day.
The tree was originally a stage prop used in medieval German plays
of mankind's fall from grace, and in time people began the practice
of having trees in their own homes on that day. Our contemporary custom
of adorning Christmas trees with balls likely arose from those prop
apples. [The Encyclopedia Americana (International Ed.)
relates a widely held belief that it was Martin Luther who originated
the custom of Christmas trees in Germany: "The sight of an evergreen
tree on Christmas Eve, with stars blazing above, is said to have made
a great impression on him, and he put up a similar tree, decorated
with lighted candles, in his home" (Danbury: Grolier, 1991),
6:667. The first proper "Christmas tree" as such is found
at Strasbourg in 1605.].
When shown there's nothing to fear from Christmas trees, antagonists
will cite Jeremiah 10:3-4 (King James Version, of course) to "prove"
that God scorns them nonetheless: "For the customs of the people
are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the
hands of the workman, with the axe. They deck it with silver and with
gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not."
The prophet is here condemning idolatry, but, taken out of context,
the passage might seem to suggest someone cutting down a Christmas
tree, nailing it to a stand, and decorating it with glittering baubles.
The Hebrew word huqqot, which the King James translators have
rendered as "customs" in Jeremiah 10:3, is better translated
in this verse as "statutes," as in religious ordinances
(Ex. 27:21, Lev. 18:3). The religion of the people is a delusion,
says Jeremiah, and he then describes the construction of an idol which
is similar to descriptions in other parts of the Old Testament (Ps.
115:4, 135:15; Is. 2:20, 31:7, 40:18-20, 41:7, 44:9-20, 46:5-7; Hab.
2:19). The tree was felled, carved, overlaid with silver and gold,
and finally made sturdy by nailing it down to prevent it from toppling
over (1 Sam. 5:1-4, Is. 41:7). In an exquisite touch of satire, Jeremiah
describes the idol dressed in royal blue and purple garments (Jer.
10:9) as being "like a scarecrow in a melon patch" (v. 5).
Unless one intends to accuse the person with a Christmas tree of idolatry,
Jeremiah 10:3-4 is simply irrelevant to the issue. [Even Ralph Woodrow,
who devotes an entire chapter to excoriating Christmas in his virulently
anti-Catholic Babylon Mystery Religion (Riverside: Ralph Woodrow
Evangelistic Association, 1966 [1990 edition], 145), concedes that
Jeremiah 10:3-4 is taken out of context. "The people in the days
of Jeremiah, as the context shows, were actually making an idol out
of the tree, the word `workman' being not merely a lumberjack, but
one who formed idols (cf. Isaiah 40:19, 20, Hosea 8:4-6). The word
`axe' refers here specifically to a carving tool. In citing this portion
of Jeremiah, we do not mean to infer that people who today place Christmas
trees in their homes or churches are worshipping these trees."
Then what exactly does he mean by citing verses condemning idolatry
when discussing the custom of decorating Christmas trees? "Such
customs do, however, provide vivid examples of how mixtures have been
made." Woodrow doesn't elaborate further].
Still, the vestiges of paganism found in Christmas festivities aren't
to be overlooked. Holly, mistletoe, yule logs, singing, cooking special
foods, and decorating the home were all once associated with this
time of year in the non-Christian world. Once converted, people did
not think of banning these things. They continued to sing, eat big
meals, and decorate their homes because these customs were viewed
as intrinsically compatible with the new faith. It was paganism that
Christianity opposed, not the culture of the people being evangelized.
This is why, for example, we still exchange rings and throw rice at
weddings even though these customs are holdovers from paganism. Indeed,
the early Christians would never have used the fish as a symbol of
Christ if they'd disdained every token of paganism.
Now we ask the big question: How should these mementoes of a bygone
pagan era be regarded today? One possibility is to view them as the
evidence of the Church's victory over false gods, as stuffed heads
adorning the walls of the hunter's trophy room. Even as the destruction
of Sodom and Gomorrah is enshrined in Scripture for our instruction
(2 Pet. 2:6, Rom. 15:4), so Christ's victory over paganism is preserved
in the memory of the Church.[The apostle Paul himself didn't hesitate
to draw upon elements of paganism, insofar as they were true in themselves,
where it would assist in elucidating the gospel. He preached to the
Athenians, "Yet [God] is not far from each one of us, for `In
him we live and move and have our being'; as even some of your poets
have said, `For we are indeed his offspring'" (Acts 17:28). The
first quotation, scholars say, is based on an earlier saying of Epimenides
of Knossos (sixth century B.C.). In the second, Paul is citing
the Stoic poet Aratus of Soli (third century B.C.), and the
saying is also found, in the plural, in Cleanthes' Hymn
to Zeus (third century B.C.). In Titus 1:12 Paul again
cites Epimenides, who had been elevated to an almost mythical status
by his fellow Cretans. Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, and others mention
Epimenides as a prophet, which is why Paul cites him as "one
of their own prophets."].
Objections to Christmas aren't confined to the pagan elements of the
holiday, as evidenced by the antagonism to jolly old Saint Nick, who
lacks heathen ties altogether, though some suspect even here a hidden
Babylonian connection. The main complaint is that Saint Nicholas,
alias Santa Claus, detracts from the purpose of the season, which
ought to be centered upon Christ. Children can name all of Santa's
reindeer starting with Rudolph, but they grow up learning nothing
of the central mystery of our redemption. This is a valid concern,
yet we must take care not to throw the proverbial baby out with the
bath water. There is benefit in contemplating the life of the historical
"Santa Claus."
Nicholas was the bishop of Myra in Lycia (southwestern Asia Minor)
at the beginning of the fourth century. He's remembered for his charity
to the poor and has long been regarded in the West as the special
patron of children, probably due to a tale about him reviving three
children from the dead.
He is said to have suffered under the Diocletian persecution, been
an opponent of Arianism, and been present at the Council of Nicaea.
His death probably occurred at Myra in 342, and the Byzantine Emperor
Justinian built a church in his honor at Constantinople in the suburb
of Blacharnae during the sixth century. His feast day being December
6 explains his association with Christmas, though his reputed opposition
to Arianism, a heresy rooted in the denial of the Incarnation, makes
the connection quite fitting. Once understood, the life of "Santa
Claus" is a model for us to follow.
Santa's red suit is possibly derived from his eastern episcopal attire,
though it was American cartoonist Thomas Nast, an anti-Catholic who
let his prejudice be enshrined in his drawings, who in 1863 created
the fur-trimmed suit we now associate with Santa Claus. Dutch settlers
to America brought the custom of giving gifts to children on St. Nicholas's
Eve, and British settlers took over the tradition as part of their
Christmas Eve celebration. The name "Santa Claus" is the
Americanized version of the Dutch "Sinterklaas," itself
a modification of "Sint Nikolaas."
Sometimes the objection is made, on the basis of the Protestant dogma
of sola scriptura, that Christians ought not to celebrate
Christ's birth because nothing is said about doing so in the Bible.
One might respond to this by way of the analogy with the Jewish feast
of Hanukkah (also called the Feast of Dedication), an eight-day celebration
(November/December) recalling the rededication of the Temple in 164
B.C. after the sanctuary had been taken over and defiled
by pagans.
The only accounts of this feast's institution are found in 1 Maccabees
4:36-59 and 2 Maccabees 10:1-8. Although these two books have always
been regarded by the Church as Scripture (the Greek Septuagint being
the accepted version of the Old Testament in the early Church), Protestants
rejected these books as "apocryphal" during the Reformation.
The only reference to Hanukkah outside of Maccabees is in John 10:22-23,
where Jesus is celebrating the "Feast of the Dedication"
in the Temple. The question may be asked, "If Jesus as a Jew
was free to celebrate a Jewish feast whose institution isn't found
in the Protestant canon of the Old Testament, may not a Christian
in the same vein celebrate the birth of his Lord, even if such a celebration
is not explicitly commanded in the pages of Holy Writ?"
While observing Christmas won't revive ancient sun worship or inspire
Germanic tree-stump adoration, our present manner of celebrating Christmas
isn't beyond criticism. As has repeatedly been observed, an obsessive
commercialism has swept aside much of the incarnational mystery which
the season calls us to reflect upon. It isn't the dead paganism of
the past that should cause alarm, but neo-paganism as represented
by secularism and the cult of materialism.
As von Balthasar observed, conflicts with evil begin and end at the
manger: "And the dragon stood before the woman who was ready
to give birth, to devour her Child as soon as it was born" (Rev.
12:4). Yet Christmas epitomizes hope, for it assures us the battle
already has been won by Christ's invasion of our world. The message
of the manger is really a declaration of war by God the Father "against
principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness
of this age" (Eph. 6:12). The history of the Church shows us
one ruler of darkness after another, from Sol Invictus to the present,
being crushed by the radical mystery of Bethlehem.
The apostle John writes, "Every spirit that confesses that Jesus
Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that does
not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God.
And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was
coming, and is now already in the world" (1 John 4:2-3). It is
at the manger that the spirit of Antichrist is discerned and judged.
It won't be by the suppression of "feasting and fellowship"
that we'll triumph over the neo-paganism of modern Antichrists, but
by joyously heralding the Lord Jesus Christ. Bringing the family together
to pray, to read the Infancy narratives from the Gospels, and to attend
church during Advent--these are our best spiritual weapons against
this present darkness.
It was the Incarnation which gave our spiritual forefathers the confidence
with which they defied the darkness of the first centuries. So it
will be again for us. If we confront the world with the scandal of
the manger, unbelievers who have walked in darkness will see a great
light, and Christians will have the ruins of modern, secular deities
to add to those of Sol Invictus as pagan ornaments for Christmases
yet to come.
T. L. Frazier freelances from the Los Angeles area.
|
C A T H O L I C A N S W E R S :
[TOP]
