The Pagan Roots of Christmas, Part One: December 25th

Every year, at around this time, there is no small amount of commotion raised about the origins of Christmas. Especially in the United States, where there is much ado about the purported "War on Christmas," verbal battles are fought viciously over the meaning and history of Christmas. In particular, Christmas is often criticized because it's not really a Christian holiday at all, rather an amalgam of pagan practices that, throughout the centuries, have been grafted into Christian tradition. Truth be told, I find it a little confusing that this has become such a contentious issue - as far as I am aware, the church (by and large) has never denied these pagan roots to the holiday, and as a result it is not an argument so much as it is a statement of fact, and it is not a condemnation so much as it is the recitation of historical events. Nonetheless, this does beg the question: If Christmas draws so heartily from the waters of heathens, what are Christians really celebrating at this time of year? In response, one must note that these integrated rituals are neither the result of some sort of mysterious conspiracy nor an unusual coincidence, but rather were intentionally adopted by the Christians of the time, and by examining them we are able to better understand the history of the holiday and thereby discover the richness and power of the symbols associated with it.


It is almost impossible to be a Christian at this time of year without hearing about the fact that Jesus probably wasn't born on or even anywhere near December 25th, and that Christmas was just a pagan winter festival that was absorbed into Christianity. This, by the way, is completely true. While some have hypothesized that Jesus was born in the early springtime, in reality we have absolutely no idea. The Biblical account does not see fit to share it, and what clues it does provide are inconclusive at best. It is fair, then, to say that Christmas is, at least to an extent, "borrowed" from the Roman religion. However, this was far from an arbitrary decision. It has been argued that this was done to make Christianity more accessible to many Romans at the time (they wouldn't need to abandon their festivals, merely change the focus), and while I don't disagree with that statement, it's not the focus that I want to take.

December 25th was, in the Julian calendar, the Winter Solstice, hence its prominence in ancient Roman religion. Early Christians selected this date for Christmas because of the inherent symbolism: The Winter Solstice is the shortest day of the year. Every day after the Solstice, days become longer and longer, until the Summer Solstice, the longest day of the year. In other words, Christmas is the celebration of the triumph of light and the receding of darkness. December 25th symbolizes the core of Christianity: A God who loved the world to the point that He came down as a human, and that this event - called the incarnation - represents the end of sin and darkness' reign over the earth. From the moment Christ was born, the proverbial days have been getting longer, and the nights shorter. Hope is stirring.

This is a part of the reason why December 25th was chosen as the day to celebrate Christ. As a result, when we as Christians begin to ponder the question "Why do we celebrate Christmas on December 25th instead of something closer to when we think Christ was actually born?" an answer is that it's a reminder. It pushes us to take a step back and reflect on what Christmas means to the Christian: The arrival of hope and the ultimate triumph of light over darkness, grace over sin, and love over hatred. Though the night persists, and we falter, we rejoice in its inevitable demise, and the promise of Christ's return.


(As an aside, the Summer Solstice, the longest day of the year, is the Feast of St. John, or the celebration of John the Baptist. Just as how John the Baptist heralded the coming of Christ, so too does the Summer Solstice herald the coming of eternal light).


"And there will no longer be any night; and they will not have need of the light of a lamp nor the light of the sun, because the Lord God will illumine them; and they will reign forever and ever." - Revelation 22:5

How A Book Called Love Wins Completely Changed My Faith

Love Wins is a book I've never read, by an authour I'm not all that familiar with - and yet it's ended up completely transforming the way I view Christianity.

That may be a bit disingenuous. The book itself hasn't really impacted me at all. Instead, it was the response to the book that completely transformed me. You see, Love Wins was a pretty controversial book, because to some it seemed to be advocating the idea that everyone winds up in heaven, Christian or otherwise. Others argued that it was advocating for something else, while still others held that it wasn't advocating much of anything at all (like I said, I haven't read it, so I can't really weigh in). In particular, there was one point made in response by the first camp, over and over and over again, and that point was this: If everyone goes to heaven, then there is no point in sharing the Gospel.

When I heard this, it completely changed how I viewed my faith and my life. It changed it because I came to the conclusion that this claim could not possibly be true.

I generally consider myself a fairly ecumenical individual, but I was truly baffled by these claims. How could anyone say "Well, if we all end up in the same place when we die, what does it all really matter?" I wanted to grab them by the shoulders and cry out, Experiencing fellowship with God? Freedom from the bondage of sin? Membership in something greater than yourself, a divine movement to redeem the world and transform creation? Participation in an overarching teleology? Obeying the commission given to us by our Lord Jesus Christ? Do all these things mean nothing to you? Do you really think that the only thing Jesus was interested in was getting people into heaven?

Because here's the problem that comes from all this: To say that the Gospel is meaningless without the fear of hell is to say that until the moment that we die the Gospel is nothing more than a luxury. I have heard people argue that universalism is devastating for missionaries, because why go to the ends of the earth when those people are going to go to heaven anyway? I argue the opposite - if the notion of people going to heaven no matter what robs you of whatever fire you have to reach these people, you need to take a long, hard look at what you believe the message of Christianity to be.

I have written before - and no doubt will again - against the unhealthy fixation much of evangelicalism has on the afterlife. If the message of Christianity is true, it is worth incalculably more than a free ticket to heaven. This is how my faith was transformed - by examining the Gospel and assessing what it means in the immediate sense. The promise of Christianity is not some nebulous prophecy, some claim that at some point in the future we're all going to see God and enjoy eternal life. The promise of Christianity begins now. In a previous post, I argued that Jewish theology was and is fairly unconcerned with the afterlife, and that the first Christians seem to have been similar.

Perhaps it's time we take a page out of their book.


PS This is my first time blogging in like a year, and looking back on it made me realize that this blog has a super pretentious name. So I'm going to try and change it. More on this story as it develops.