Why do we celebrate Christmas?

In my "Introduction to the arts of worship" class, I had the opportunity to study liturgy and to appreciate why certain practices are adopted in the church. One major Christian celebration that had always pique my curiosity was "why do we celebrate Christmas?" I had heard of people claiming that it used to be a pagan event, so they argued that Christians should not partake in it. What's more, the shopping malls and commercials have popularized Christmas so much that there are hardly any traces of the significance Jesus' birth. Is Christmas a pagan invention? Are churches collaborating with the commercialized world in celebrating Christmas?

1) The early church's celebrations

The early church structured the Christian time in such a way that reflects the early community's values. Worshipping weekly on Sunday was the earlier testimonies of the early Christian communities as recorded in 1Cor 16:2, Acts 20:7,11, Rev 1:10. Extrabiblical records such as one written by Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, dated A.D. 115, tells us the practice of keeping the Sabbath or the Lord's Day.

Apart from the Lord's Day, the most important event recorded by the early church was the Passover-Easter, or Pascha. "In the first three centuries, Christ's passion, death, and resurrection were commemorated together at the Pascha."[1] The second in importance was the celebration of the Day of Pentecost, which commemorated both the ascension of Christ and the descent of the Holy Spirit. The third chief event dated as early as the fourth century was Epiphany. This event is closely related to our Christmas today. As Jesus was believed to be conceived on the same day when he died, i.e. April 6, the early church believed that his birth should fall on January 6. Epiphany signified the birth of Christ, to the Magi, to the baptism of Jesus, and Jesus' first miracle recorded in the Gospel of John. It was the day when God manifested to humans, and this day was also called "The Theophany" (manifestation of God). When did Christmas come in then?

2) Birth of Christmas

A Roman document from A.D.354 shows that Epiphany was split by the first half of the fourth century. It records a feast around A.D. 336, December 25 to commemorate the birth of Christ in Bethlehem, Judea. "This date competed with a relatively new pagan festival of the Unconquered Sun as the sun begins to wax again at the winter solstice."[2] In the winter season, the daylight tends to get shorter and shorter in the Northern hemisphere until around December 25. This means that when the day starts to get longer during the winter in the Northern Hemisphere, it was commemorated by the pagans as the return of the "Unconquered Sun." The early Christians in Rome "baptized" that same day to commemorate the birth of Jesus Christ. There is certain sense of logic as Jesus' birth signifies new light and hope for the whole world, and Jesus is the true light, instead of any created being. The commemorations of the Epiphany were gradually brought forward to Christmas. But the Epiphany was not totally replaced. At its heart, Epiphany commemorates the day Jesus was baptized. The period from Christmas to Epiphany therefore has deep theological implication. This period signifies the birth of Jesus and the baptism of Jesus, and testifies to the whole purpose of incarnation: "the manifestation of God in Jesus Christ, beginning both with his birth and with the beginning of his ministry."[3] If I were to follow God's manifestation in Jesus Christ from his birth and ministry in chronological order, where would that lead me? Right to the Passover-Easter. So, by the end of the first four centuries, the early Christians not only have weekly worship service, they have Passover-Easter (and Lent), Pentecost, and Christmas-Epiphany (and predecessor of Advent), that distinctively mark the early Christian calendar. These events point to what God had done for us and continued to do through the Holy Spirit. "All we have to do is accept what God has done"[4] and be reminded that all these are God's gift that we cannot create but only accept. By accepting God's gift and celebrating through these various events, we are proclaiming "Jesus Christ until he comes again and to testify to the Holy Spirit indwelling the church in the meantime."[5]

3) Reflection on Christmas

As I ponder upon the significance of my new discoveries about Christmas, I also realized that I have unearthed new elements as well.

First, the shepherds who bore testimonies to Jesus' birth were regarded with high suspicion, and even despised, in the first century. "Because they were generally poor and nomadic, shepherds were feared as a kind of wandering, potentially criminal element in the land. To these, not to the noble of the elite, God sent heavenly messengers with good tidings."[6] Though I do not see shepherds around me today, I can imagine the trash collectors who poke into the rubbish bins for bottles and cans. They are nomadic and poor, and sometimes feared as potential criminals. I can imagine God revealing Godself to these people, instead of people whom I called highly civilized as they are highly respected in the society. God is sometimes revealed in unexpected places. Am I ready to be jerked out of my comfort zone in order to encounter God's reality?

Second, most of the time, when I celebrate Christmas in the church, I would witness the enactment of three wise men who visited Jesus, and a scene where they would report to King Herod. However, I have missed the fact that children under two years old in and around Bethlehem were killed by the government officials. A genocide was committed in order to protect King Herod's dynasty. As I imagined the grief and loss of the families, I could faintly hear the cries of the parents, especially the widows and the poor individuals; the agony and anguish of the whole town that Jesus was born in. As I celebrate Jesus' birth in Bethlehem, I have forgotten some people who are in their destitute now. There are people who have lost hopes and dreams, not because of their doings, but because of the ambition of those in authority and power. As I thank God for Jesus' birth, shouldn't I also pray for the people, whose destiny are just briefly mentioned on the newspaper front page or maybe found on some obscure web site and quickly forgotten? How about those people who had lost their entire life savings in the Lehman brothers' crash?

Third, when passing the candlelight during the Christmas celebration, other than the "good feeling" it conjured, it is supposed to signify that Christians are called to be light of the world. Whether it is basking in the splendor of the decoration along Orchard Road or the holiday mood generated by the twinkling Christmas tree, I am commemorating the birth of an immensely greater light and in fact the true light of the world. I ought to celebrate the birth of the true light and by celebrating the event, I am called to remember that we have hope (I used "we" because the nature of this hope is corporate, not individual). This hope is given by God though His incarnation, crucifixion and resurrection. This hope is rooted in the past, continuing in the present, and carrying us forward to encounter the future, so this hope has an eschatological dimension. This hope is not to be meant to be saturated by the sign-values of the commercialized world, but to be proclaimed and lived out by every Christians around the globe. As I celebrate this hope in the presence of the Holy Spirit, I remember that because of this hope, I am called to be an imitator of Jesus Christ (1Cor 11:1, Eph 5:1).

May you have a blessed new year.

Endnotes:

[1] James F. White, Introduction to Christian Worship, 3rd ed. (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2000), 54.

[2] Ibid., 62.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid., 67.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Laurence Hull Stookey, Calendar: Christ's Time for the Church (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1996), 112.

Decoding the “invisible religion”- our market economy

In the Fall'08 semester, I took a class on "Theological and economic ethics of globalization" with Prof Nimi Wariboko at Andover-Newton Theological Seminary. In this class, we learned the framework of Max Stackhouse in examining the forces of globalization, and the principle of neo-classical economy from Ulrich Duchrow and Franz J. Hinkelammert. In writing my final paper, I was able to tap on their insights and William Schweiker's analysis of the meanings of market economy. My learning is also made possible by the support of my family members, brothers and sisters, especially those from Chinese Graduate Varsity Christian Fellowship and Providence Presbyterian Church. I will write briefly on what I have learnt about the implicit meanings of market economy.

1) Very brief background of market economy
First of all, what is market economy? It was first espoused by Adam Smith in 1776, and he advocated a type of economy characterized by "system-wide resource allocation [that] occurs as a consequence of many individual market transactions, each of which is guided by self-interest."[1] This economy built on the self-interest of individuals would self-regulate to maximize returns. This self-regulation or the "invisible hand" of the market will guarantee optimal price and quantity of goods due to the law of supply and demand. This is the assumption made by modern neo-classical economists. As long as the economy grows, all will prosper from the system by participating in it. The undergirding value behind this principle is that human nature is individualistic and all economic activities should lead to growth. Since US was founded, they have been practicing market economy as the default mode of economic growth.

Now that we have a rudimentary understanding of the operating principle of market economy, we have to ask why market economy is such a dominant force now. In the aftermath of WWII, the US was the only country to enjoy economic growth as the European powers were vastly weakened in the war. The Bretton Woods agreement in 1944 set up: (1) a framework that imposed US dollar as the world currency; (2) the IMF, and World Bank (originally International Bank for Reconstruction and Development), supposed to invigorate economic growth of devastated countries, that played according to the US rules; and (3) an international trade system that reduced tariffs. These set the stage for US-based transnational corporations (TNCs) to expand their market into other parts of the world. By establishing overseas markets, and setting up production base overseas, the TNCs created a globalized market. To show how US is dedicated to this globalized market, I will quote directly from Ulrich Duchrow and Franz J. Hinkelammert's Property for people, not for profit: Alternatives to the global tyranny of capital.

On 16 October 2001, during the preparatory stages of the UN Conference on Financing for Development, the US representative, Terry Miller, declared bluntly: 'We start with three commitments: a commitment to peace; a commitment to freedom and rule of law; and a commitment to capitalism. Governments that make these commitments have a chance to develop. Governments that do not have no chance at all.'[2]

2) Economy as our dominant worldview
According to Max Stackhouse, every society can be identified by the different dominant powers governing the society. Each of them has their own separate sphere and he labels them as Mammon (economy), Mars (system of legitimatized authority to reduce violence), Eros (human sexuality), and the Muses (fine arts and mass media).[3] Religion is the "identifying center of being, meaning, and morality that bonds people and the powers together in a shared system."[4] The overriding concern of "mammon" in the neo-classical economics is that we can be so fascinated and devoted to it such that we define our lives by "a commodity and thus deny our dignity by equating worth with things having only use, exchange, and sign value."[5] We allow the mammon which is only a subsystem within the whole system to convert and homogenize values, norms, authorities, and relations, and other subsystems.[6]
As religion becomes a private sphere, we tend to keep it to one aspect of our life, and allow economy to be unchallenged driving force structuring our worldview. The economy "mingles and mediates cultural meanings in a plethora of ways that affect cultures powerfully and unpredictably,"[7] and becomes our religion as it takes on the role of the center of being, meaning, and morality. "The greatest force in any society … is the cultural power to define and transmit values, to determine what matters and how much it matters and thus to saturate consciousness with those values."[8] This greatest force, originally the domain of religion, is now transferred to the mammon. It is so subtle that it has become our invisible religion, and has seeped into our sub-consciousness without us knowing it. In fact, we are already practicing it. In the words of Peter Berger,

Socialization…has a crucial dimension that is not adequately grasped by speaking of a learning process. The individual not only learns the objectivated meanings but identifies with and is shaped by them. He draws them into himself and makes them his meanings. He becomes not only one who possesses these meanings, but one who represents and expresses them.[9]

In our socialization, we reinforce this invisible religion, and measure ourselves by the living standard erected on the edifice of mammon. We are the embodiment of this invisible religion when the goal of our lives is to pursue personal happiness by spending money.[10] We define ourselves as consumers; understand our economic growth by the amount of consumer spending; measure the health of our economic system based on consumer confidence index; inculcate our values through advertisements and soap operas; put on name-brand products as if it shapes our identities; work longer and extend financial credit for fancier car and bigger house as if our success are measured by it.
When the transnational corporations are the main exporters of production modes, distributors of goods and services, they also export their economic model in order to ensure their efficiency. Individuals across the globe are being rationalized into a common economic model, and more people become commodified and their worth reduced to monetary scale of exchange. US culture and value have been effectively exported to other countries, supported by an artillery of their mass media. Our worldview is permeated by this invisible religion and this "religion" gradually replaces indigenous culture, value and worldview, and we call it the globalization process.

3) GDP as the measure of economic growth
When economy permeates our worldview, it will be the only set of lens in telling who we are. We also unconsciously subscribe to commonly used model to measure our economic progress. Some economists claim that economic model is impartial to ethical values, and they are right. A good example is the most widely-used tool to measure a country's economic growth, the GDP (Gross Domestic Product), which is the sum of all financial transactions within the country. This does not take into account the type of transaction taking place. Turning on the air-conditioner rather than opening the window, driving a car rather than walking, police activities to curb crimes, cutting down trees, are examples of financial transactions, hence are part of the GDP. Unpaid housework, child care, elderly care, volunteer work are not counted as financial transactions, and are excluded from GDP. The depletion of natural resources, the destruction of natural environment, and the pollution of environment are similarly not included in the GDP. Do you think GDP is an adequate model to measure our country's economic growth? What's the underlying assumption of GDP? Do you see how the neo-classical economic model does not warrant the sustainability of our earth and responsibility of those empowered to protect the weak and poor from exploitation?

4) My reflection
There are various professional theologians who have responded to the forces of market economy. Having alternative worldview is important to challenge the one offered by market economy. Because I believe that we are made in God's image, and have been restored to a relationship with God, I have sufficient ground to affirm that I am not a consumer. I am a human being, valued by God the Creator, Redeemer and Sustainer. I want to quote Philip Wogaman's paraphrase of Karl Barth's statement on Christian ethics,

Christian ethics is existing in grace….it means at least that one lives through the acceptance of being affirmed by God and invited into fellowship by God. It means that one is not substituting for this some form of acceptance based upon some other notion of the good; one is not under the control of economic force, political realities, cultural pressures. This freedom is not necessarily the freedom to do—for what we are able to do is certainly affected by these things. But it is the freedom to be: to be what, through God's grace, we are.[11]

The cornerstone of Christian's identity is anchored in God's grace. One's worth and value are established by accepting God's affirmation and invitation into fellowship. When that has been established, one has no need of further assurance from economical, political or cultural sphere. One has therefore the freedom to be whom God calls him to be, and this rests upon the foundation of God's grace. Let us not sell ourselves to commodification. We are worth so much more than a commodity. The sign-value conferred by commodification is broken when one's self-understanding is saturated by one's relationship with God.
The ironic fact is that many Christians subscribe to economy-driven values and we practice these values even in our church. Do you recall the minister saying "Wow! She is a doctor!" or "Our speaker has a PhD from Harvard University, and we are so privileged and honored to have him here." How about being harassed with questions like "Where did you graduate from?" or "What type of housing do you live in?" in order to assess your socioeconomic status? They are just short of asking "How much do you earn?" I am not trying to discredit the hard work, discipline, and time invested in getting higher level education or landing oneself in a world-acclaimed institution. What I want to point out is that every Christian is a priest. We serve one another before God in different capacity according to our gift in order to build up the body of Christ, and we bring other people before God, as well as bringing God to other people. Our identity is not defined by socioeconomic status or characterized by economy-driven values, but by a lasting and fulfilling relationship with God, and nourished by community of people redeemed by God.

William Schweiker has pointed out the significance of sign-values propped up by the market economy. As I think of the advertisements that bombarded me daily when I was in Singapore, Jurong Point shopping mall that I used to frequent, I can't help but to imagine myself as a consumer. The hand phones, gadgets, clothing, the shopping mall culture seem to be dictating to me "who I am," rather than me who decide "who I am." In my work place in Singapore, my work performance determines my bonus and rate of promotion. Instead of knowing "who I am," I have measured myself by monetary worth of labor exchange. I have been surrounded by various sign-values fueled by the invisible religion, i.e. market economy, without myself knowing it. In fact, "who I am" has already been decisively determined when I entered into a covenantal relationship with the triune God, purchased at the price of Jesus Christ. It is by living without television, rampant advertisements, shopping malls; by entering into more meaningful conversations with other people; and acquiring the tools to decode this invisible religion that I learn to see my past in a new light. I have sold myself out to this invisible religion in the past, and I am starting to reclaim my self-identity in Christ. So, God help me as I learn to locate my locus of self-identity within You, the ground of all beings, and not in the mammon (economy).

End notes:

[1] Steven C. Hackett, Environmental and Natural Resources Economics: Theory, Policy, and the Sustainable Society (Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 1998), 33, quoted in Sallie McFague, Life Abundant: Rethinking Theology and Economy for a Planet in Peril (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001), 76.
[2] Ulrich Duchrow and Franz J. Hinkelammert, trans. Elaine Griffiths, Trish Davie, Michael Marten and Paraic Reamonn, Property for people, not for profit: Alternatives to the global tyranny of capital (London, New York: Zed Books, 2004), 100.
[3] Max L. Stackhouse, “General Introduction,” eds. Max L. Stackhouse and Peter J. Paris, God and Globalization Vol. 1: Religion and the Powers of the Common Life (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2000), 37.
[4] Ibid., 38.[5] William Schweiker, “Responsibility in the World of Mammon,” eds. Max L. Stackhouse and Peter J. Paris, God and Globalization Vol. 1: Religion and the Powers of the Common Life (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2000), 113.
[6] Michael Walzer, Spheres of Justice: A Defense of Pluralism and Equality (New York: Basic Books, 1983) quoted by Schweiker, “Responsibility in the World of Mammon,” 118.
[7] Schweiker, “Responsibility in the World of Mammon,” 119.
[8] Ibid., 123.
[9]Peter L. Berger, The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion (New York: Anchor Books, 1969, 1990), 15.
[10] Sallie McFague, Life Abundant: Rethinking Theology and Economy for a Planet in Peril (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001), 84.
[11] J. Philip Wogaman, “Formative Christian Moral Thinkers,” Christian Ethics: A Historical Introduction (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1993), 221.