12.16.2005 | Nice try...

...but no cigar. Gene Edward Veith, writing in World Magazine, attempts to convince us that "the origin of Christmas had nothing to do with paganism." By which he means not the birth of the Lord, but the date on the calendar on which it is celebrated.

Veith cites an epistle by "Calculating Christmas," published in the December 2003 Touchstone Magazine by William Tighe, and then goes on and on about how the date could have been calculated by assuming March 25 as the date for Jesus' conception. And so on. It's all very convoluted, and, as .

The entire effect is that Mr. Veith is trying far too hard to deny the obvious: that the celebration of Christmas within three days of the Winter Solstice was instituted to evangelize pagan peoples. To claim it had nothing to do with this purpose is to ignore the evidence. And, if it wasn't to coincide with the solstice, doesn't it ever occur that the arbitrary selection of March 25 for Jesus' conception (nine months to the day, even though human gestation isn't exactly nine months) is a bit too much of a coincidence?

The point is that Christmas as we now celebrate it has been encrusted with many pagan trappings. We are often told, not by World Magazine, to be certain, but by many others, that Christianity should "adapt itself" to cultural norms around the world. Well, yule logs, holly, dead pine trees in the living room certainly do that. Thereby, to a certain extent, violating the injunction, "Do not be conformed to this world" (Romans 12:2).

In the end, as Veith points out, the actual calendar date on which we celebrate the first coming of our Lord is not important. What is important is that He did come. Call it a rescue mission.

| technorati tag | Christianity|