Peter Espeut
It's that season again: when the anti-Christians make their assault on Christmas, and when I launch a defence of Christianity.
In the Sunday's Observer, someone identifying herself as a 'Sunday Observer staff reporter' has written a piece entitled 'Christmas has nothing to do with Christ's birth'.
An attack?
She begins in bold type: "December 25 may be the single most important date in Christendom." Right away, she identifies herself as someone who doesn't know a whole lot about Christendom; the celebrations surrounding the suffering, death and resurrection of Jesus are the most important dates in for Christians, not Christmas.
It is Jesus' sacrifice on Calvary's cross that has redeemed the world and (all those in it) from the clutches of evil, not Jesus' birth in Bethlehem.
In her piece, the Sunday Observer staff reporter sought the views of Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh-day Adventists and Rastafarians - all vicious critics of traditional Christianity.
To be able to die for us, Jesus had to be born. We don't know the precise date when he was born, but he was born. Christianity has established a calendar during which all the events of Jesus' life are celebrated, and Christmas is the memorial of his birth. We don't know the exact date he was baptised in the Jordan, or was transfigured on the mountain, or multiplied the loaves and fish; but each of those events is commemorated in turn every year.
To say that "Christmas has nothing to do with Christ's birth" is nonsense! Christmas is the day traditional Christians choose to celebrate Jesus' birth. Is the Sunday Observer staff reporter saying that because we don't know the exact date Jesus was born, we shouldn't celebrate it at all?
REAL MEANING
The Christian doctrine of "The Fall" derives from the Adam and Eve story. Somehow humanity fell from grace, and needed a saviour. God could have chosen another method, but he decided to send his only-begotten son to offer his life as a sacrifice to atone for the sins of the human race.
John in his gospel account states that the creative Word became flesh and dwelt among us humans. In theological language we call this the 'Incarnation', and Christmas is a celebration of the Incarnation.
If God could become truly human, then humanity isn't so bad after all! 'The Fall' has been upended, and the objective state of humanity has been elevated! And the potential of humanity has been vastly increased!
The Garden of Eden has had its antithesis in the stable in Bethlehem! And we are about to enter into a New Covenant with God! This is tremendously good news, to be proclaimed everywhere!
Now, Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe that Jesus is 'True God and True Man', and for Rastafarians, Selassie is God; and Seventh-day Adventists are still focused on the Old Covenant law. So, the Sunday Observer staff reporter must know that you do not go to any of these for good words about Christmas.
So if the Editor asks for a piece on Christmas, and he assigns his staff writer to interview Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh-day Adventists and Rastafarians, it is an attack upon Christmas that he will get.
My colleague columnist, Ian Boyne, who is a leader in the Armstrong church, a split-off from the Adventist Church, is no believer in Christmas - we have been duelling for the last 15 years on this subject.
This year, his line (in his column Sunday last) is: "Christmas is a poor substitute for the meaningful and rich biblical Feast of Tabernacles". I say that Old Covenant Armstrongism is a poor substitute for New Covenant Christianity.
To my readers, I pray, 'May the blessings Jesus brought to the human race at that first Christmas be yours!'
Peter Espeut is a Roman Catholic deacon with a first class honours degree in theology.
