Christmas Day Practice for Bowl Game!!
- Thread starter Calvinwebster
- Start date
(1) Correct.
(2) umm...No. Unless you consider Origen, the Monastic movement, or St. Clement of Alexandria (2nd-3rd centuries) recent. You are way off base on Christmas not being an orthodox Christian practice. It was not one of the original feast days recorded by Polycarp or Irenaeus, (which reflected the feast days of Judaism) but it was a part of church liturgy before the conversion of England and was certainly celebrated by the time of Charlemagne - who was crowned on Christmas day as part of the celebration. It was celebrated in the Western church by the 3rd century and in the East by the time of the Cappadocians.
Christmas as a popular holiday with presents and retail sales galore is a contemporary invention, but the celebration of Christ's mass is quite ancient.
Sorry still not buying it. There is a long history of American Christian sects not celebrating Christmas.
http://www.dailypress.com/news/local/virginia/dp-religiontoday1214dec14,0,2910292.story
America = ~232 years old.
Christianity = ~2000 years old.
You said that Christmas was not an orthodox Christian practice. You are wrong. Those discouraging the celebration of Christmas are the ones being unorthodox. There are psuedo Christian spin-off cults that handle snakes, drink poisons, and have reinstated the sacrificial system...they are the ones not orthodox. Your article cites Methodists as discouraging observance of Christmas...here's a clue to the validity of that - Charles Wesley (John's Brother and a founding father of Methodism) wrote "Hark! The Herald Angels Sing." While there may have been some movement among some group at some point, it does not re-write the history of what is orthodox or normative. The Christian Church was celebrating Christmas long before the puritans cited in your link were canceling Christmas to burn witches at the stake.
Personally I don't care what you believe. So you know, I am probably a better source of information than that link you provided. I have degrees in Bible and Theology, and I am currently in residence at Asbury Theological Seminary. I don't link to articles on religion or church history, I write them.
Merry Christmas!
Last edited:
I love Christmas as much as the next person. My argument was meant to show that celebrating Christmas in the US on a massive scale hasn't been the norm. I don't think Presbyterians, Baptists, Quakers, Methodists and Congregationalists are 'spin off cults'.
(Maybe we can move this to the non-football thread, I'd like to keep discussing it).
I'll argue with Big_Fan all day about evolution, but I wouldn't bother trying to one-up him with my knowledge and understanding of the history of Christian traditions.
The problem is not with the cited denominations, the problem is with the article. It is not accurate. I cited one example with American Methodism. There are others...The article was a classic example of a writer taking a stance and trying to piece together information to support it. While it is true that Christmas was a religious celebration more than a cultural one, it has been in practice for the better part of 2000 years - including in the USA. Just because business did not stop does not mean that it was not celebrated.
To say that it is not orthodox because of substantiation by a preacher from "the United Church of God" is absurd. The UCG is non-trinitarian for one - That makes THEM not orthodox from the word GO. The UCG does not celebrate Easter either....or any other Holiday with any correlation to paganism (I wonder how they get around using the calendar since days and months are named after pagan gods). The UCG believes that the USA and the UK are two of the lost tribes of Israel! They are just a hair shy of being a cult.
While I respect Bruce Forbes for writing a book (takes time and work), what is cited from him is weak at best.
In researching his book, "Christmas: A Candid History," Forbes discovered that major American denominations--Presbyterians, Baptists, Quakers, Methodists and Congregationalists--either ignored the holiday or actively discouraged it until the late 19th century.
Given that Christianity in America was very loosely knit due to the expanse covered, celebration of Christmas would not have been heavily centralized. Rural folk did what rural folk did. Methodism was appealing because the circuit riders made sure that there were well trained clergymen to deliver messages.
The time frame of "late 19th century" is pretty vague as well. Methodism was evolving during the 19th century - it was hardly even a denomination until after Wesley died in 1791.
While I would not say that Christianity has always been unified on celebrating Christmas, it has certainly been the normative practice of Christianity since the time of Pope Gregory the Great - if not earlier. The anti-Christmas puritan movement did not happen until the mid 1700's and it lasted about 100 years. Almost all of orthodox Christianity has observed Christmas for almost all of Christian history. To state that it was ever popularly viewed as unorthodox to celebrate Christmas is wrong.
My contention hasn't been to argue against Christmas as religious celebration. I just think it hasn't historically been a cornerstone of many US religious sects.
I agree with you on the UCG UK/US = lost tribes of Israel is crazy. But there is a basis to their argument of Easter/Christmas being pagan holdovers. Christian adoption/converting of pagan festivals was critical to getting widespread support throughout the Roman Empire. From a purely historical argument, it is valid. Christmas was undoubtedly celebrated on December 25th because that was the Saturnalia. You being a theologian would know better, but I'm pretty sure there is not a date mentioned for the birth of Christ. December 25th had hosted numerous festivals, Christmas made sense to be held on the same day.
That's very interesting. I'm getting my PhD in history and am fond of the theory that geography plays on historical events/changes.
I think you may be under-evaluating the influence of Puritan theology/principles on mainstream America. I'd recommend "The Puritan Origins of the American Self" by Sacvan Bercovitch. The basic tenants of Puritan theology lasted well beyond the Puritans themselves.
Also, there had always been a strain of Protestantism which rejected Christmas. It was banned in England from 1647 till the Restoration. Not to mention the various bans also in the US.
I think it all comes down to Christmas as religious holiday versus a cultural event. The former, I totally agree, has been around 2,000 years. In the US, that has been historically tempered though (through theology, geography, etc). As a cultural event it is a modern concept.
When I made this post it was about Crimson Tide Football and how CNS is having the team practice on Chrismas Day when they do not have to report till the 26th. How did the topic go from Crimson Tide Football to theories and history of religion. I think since the Team lost the last 4 games that getting as much practice will be in the best interest of the team. How did we get off that topic???:conf2::conf2::conf2:
Last edited:
If I had to work on Christmas to watch the game, I would.
Whatever it takes.
Granted, I don't celebrate Christmas (religiously, anyway) but I would begrudgingly give up Festivus for Bama football, too.
Whatever it takes.
Granted, I don't celebrate Christmas (religiously, anyway) but I would begrudgingly give up Festivus for Bama football, too.
It was moved to non-sports by the mods. Sorry to have hijacked your thread. :redface:
My entire contention with your post was that you stated that Christmas was not viewed as orthodox. That has never been the case. When someone who is not orthodox views something as not orthodox...I am not sure what it means to be honest
I have read more books on Puritans than I care to recall and I don't minimize their influence, but my point is that the USA is not a very old country. To state that Christmas was not widely accepted until "late 19th century" is to effectively say that it has been accepted for almost half of the time that our nation has existed. That was my point with the circuit riding...when you go back earlier than "late 19th century," you are into the industrial revolutionary period when there was no means of communication and the distances involved with the North American colonization made it very difficult to speak generally about anything. Also figured into this is the change of though immediately following the period of enlightenment that had just swept Europe. 100 years seems like a long time now, but when you parallel the growth of the west to the spread of the church to move into modernity, the Puritan influence on Christmas would be roughly 100 years - in American history.
Something else that bothered me about your link was that Methodists were listed along side Baptist, Congregationalist, and Presbyterian churches. Methodism was not part of the Puritan movement. John Wesley was still an Anglican priest when he died. Methodism was initially a movement to model the church of Acts chapter 2, within the Anglican church in England. Methodist "societies" were formed...not unlike the contemporary "small group" movement.
In America, Methodism addressed the problem of having poorly trained clergy who were spreading screwed up doctrine...the free reign and spread of protestant Christianity without proper oversight and training did lead to the proliferation of some crazy stuff.
In the middle 19th century, there was not a centralized Methodist church so making broad statements about Methodists does not fly. In the middle 1800's there was the Methodist Episcopal North and South, The Methodist Protestant Church, and Free Methodists were split off by then. There were numerous others. The "United" Methodist church of today was from the merger of the Methodist Episcopal South with the Methodist Protestant Church back in the 30's, and the Evangelical Brethren in the late 60's.
So...in conclusion of this - there were some groups who did not support Christmas as a Holiday in the early days of our country. Christmas HAD been celebrated as a religious festival (from the Hebrew Feast Days) since the third century and was a very ancient and orthodox event.
As for Dec 25th, the current theological perspective is a bit different than the popular one. You have to go back to Judaism to understand the origin of Dec. 25. From a contemporary theological perspective, Dec 25 is not seen as the date of the birth of Christ, but the date of His conception. This is reflected by the Jewish view of life beginning at conception, etc. The belief is that Jesus was born in the Hebrew month of Tishri (during which time the flocks would have been in the fields - December they would not). This line of thought ultimately has Jesus date of conception as Dec 25 and that being recorded as DOB in the second century by Christians. I don't hold to this view, but it has a strong following.
Many if not most view Dec 25 as a symbolic day. I don't think it really matters.
As for Easter being pagan...semantics. Sunday is pagan. Saturday is pagan.
Heck...The book of Genesis begins with "The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters."
The Hebrew word translated "deep" is from the root "Teh-home" = same as Tiamat from the Enuma Elish. Tiamut was the mother of all gods in ancient Babylonian lore, who was personified as a water creature. Marduk killed her and used her body to make the Earth..does that make Genesis pagan? Nah. It is a nice little slap at the creation account contained in popular literature of the second Millennia BC though!
My entire contention with your post was that you stated that Christmas was not viewed as orthodox. That has never been the case. When someone who is not orthodox views something as not orthodox...I am not sure what it means to be honest
I guess the argument is therefore what counts as orthodox for you? In your reasoning Puritans weren't orthodox? Perhaps its all perspective as to what counts as orthodox. I think Puritan thought was very widespread in Britain and early America. Their rejection of Christmas would have therefore been accepted and mainstream.
For the first 300 years of Christianity, as you mention, there was no Christmas. The focus was on the death of Christ, not his birth. During the first years Christmas was gaining ground as a concept, it would have been unorthodox by definition.
Exactly. For half the history of the US, Christmas was rejected by a large segment of the populous. This ties into the original part of this thread. Getting upset that football players are practicing on Christmas is a relative concept. Historically its not a big deal at all.
I won't defend the link fully. I just threw it out there as quick evidence that Christmas has a complex history.
I agree totally. I disagree with the idea of the non-celebration of Christmas as not being orthodox and which only lasted a brief period.
A couple of questions:
-What do you mean by 'current theological perspective'? Which branch of Christianity is advocating this? I'd imagine with the tendency of Christianity to splinter into sects, there are multiple current theological perspectives. But I'm not the theologian so I'll defer to you.
-So then Christ's birthday would have been around Sept or Oct then?
I seem to remember an argument about the Romans taking a census of the region when Christ was born. I think the argument was a census would never have been done in winter. This last discussion over the exact birth of Christ does provide quite a problem for those advocating a literal interpretation.
Last edited:
These "kids" were awarded a scholarship that included paid tuition, free books, unlimited access to academic tutoring, etc. They are EARNING a degree not a scholarship. Now compare that with the student that has no scholarship, has to pay full tuition, and pay for their books by working one or more jobs that might include working on Christmas OR any other holiday. Those on scholarship (either athletic or academic or otherwise) knew the requirements and time necessary to maintain that scholarship.
In the real world, if my boss told me (quoting you) "Your performance has been subpar. You're working on Christmas because you deserve it" exactly how would you feel?", I'd feel dang lucky I wasn't fired. In the real world, a subpar performance will generally find your kiester fired.
It wouldn't kill me to work on Christmas day nor will it hurt the UA football team to practice for 2 hours on Christmas day. :BigA:
Thanks for hijacking my topic and not talking about Crimson Tide Football and getting my post put in the non-sports section!!!!!!!
New Posts
-
-
Keelon Russell A-Day Film Study by JD Pickell - Me? I see Tua Flashbacks???- Latest: CaliforniaTide
-
-
Trending content
-
-
-
-
-
Thread 'Good luck dealing with a pandemic, depending on this administration...'- TIDE-HSV
Replies: 8K -
-
-
Latest threads
-
Keelon Russell A-Day Film Study by JD Pickell - Me? I see Tua Flashbacks???
- Started by BamaMoon
- Replies: 4
-
-
ESPN: Riddick's favorite players in the NFL draft class, from first-round locks to exciting sleepers- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
ESPN: 10 NFL scouts predict the first 10 draft picks
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
ESPN: Forget the 40: The true measure of Carnell Tate
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
No. 11 Alabama’s Saturday Matchup at No. 4 Texas Moved to 12 p.m. CT First Pitch
- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0