ILLUSTRATIONS: Santa Claus … not Jesus. Below: Karl Marx (not mentioned in the story) … also not Santa Claus. Jesus Christ (quoted at length) … not Santa Claus either.

This is an edited version of a post that first appeared in this space in 2012. With the Right in Alberta working itself into a full-blown swivet about “political correctness” and the imaginary “War on Christmas” as an excuse to assail anyone who dares to wish anyone else “Happy Holidays,” it still seemed timely. Reprinting old blog posts isn’t a sin – I mean, like, a Christian sin – is it? DJC

Today is Christmas, and thus an opportunity for many who think of themselves as adherents of the Christian faith to lecture everyone else sternly about the need to “put Christ back into Christmas.”

This is, after all, His birthday, they remind us –  although, actually, it’s almost certainly not. However, that doesn’t really matter as Dec. 25 stands in for it at a conveniently miserable time of year when European pagans would otherwise quite sensibly have gone on celebrating the imminent return of longer and warmer days to their deeply chilled continent, instead of the somewhat less imminent, as it turned out, return of their Saviour.

Notwithstanding all that, the point of this particular little Christmas homily is that if Christians want to put Christ back into Christmas, an excellent place to start would be by paying attention to what Christ taught them – which seemingly nowadays has very little to do with the things that most concern a very large percentage of practicing Christians.

This seem to be especially true of Evangelical Protestants – like the good people who raised me – so many of whom nowadays seem to be focused on the Three Gs, with a side helping of Israel and the End Times. The Three Gs are, of course, Guns (they like ’em), Gays (they don’t) and Gifts (well, who doesn’t, eh?).

However, as St. Paul (the actual saint, that is, not the town in Alberta or the city in Minnesota) most certainly didn’t say, the greatest of these is Gifts.

So great is the last of the Three Gs at the start of the 21st Century Anno Domini that some observers have theorized that North America, most certainly including its stubbornly secularist northern half, “is now firmly in the grip of a different religion: shopping.”

This fact may be the thing that prompts annoyingly self-righteous Christians to decry consumerism and demand the immediate restoration of Christ to Christmas – especially if the Christian doing the decrying is the family patriarch (or, in possibly a majority households nowadays, the matriarch) contemplating the coming struggle to pay off the Visa bill.

But what, as we are constantly being asked by these same people in other circumstances, would Jesus say?

Depending, of course, on your view of the inerrancy of Scripture, we actually have a pretty good idea, since it was all taken down and (on one famous occasion) used against Him in a court of law.

Speaking of courts, here’s an interesting commentary by Jesus Himself (who most certainly was opposed to needless violence and never uttered a single word, pro or con, on the topic of homosexuality) on what the future holds – a commentary, it is said here, that should be attended to by followers of the Christian religion, in particular those who mix what they think of as their religious fundamentalism with economic market fundamentalism.

On the theory that what the adult Christ had to say should be more relevant to how Christians ought to live than the story of the infant Jesus, our text today comes instead from the Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 25, starting at Verse 32:

“…And before him shall be gathered all nations; and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats. And he shall set the sheep on his right hand and the goats on his left. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

“For I was an hungered and ye gave me meat; I was thirsty and ye gave me drink; I was a stranger and ye took me in; Naked and ye clothed me; I was sick and ye visited me; I was in prison and ye came unto me.”

And the righteous, on his right hand, sounding perplexed, respond with questions:

“Lord, when saw we thee an hungered, and fed thee? Or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

“And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. …”

If the righteous sound mildly surprised by all this, as if their reward were quite unexpected to them, perhaps this was because so many Christians have been taught by the actions and the words of their leaders that charity – and the extension of charity into earthly government – was of no consequence at all, or even a bad thing.

As for those on his left hand, the ones who failed to do their charitable work, I won’t trouble readers about what happened to them, save to say that Pastor Alan Hunsperger late of Alberta’s Wildrose Party would have understood their fate even if he were surprised by the sin that provoked it.

No, Jesus didn’t have anything good at all to say about the “virtue of selfishness,” which to hear a lot of Christians nowadays you’d think was part of the Gospel of Jesus, not the dark gospel of Ayn Rand.

Rather, He taught us about the need to provide food and drink for the hungry, clothing to the poor, offer mercy to those in prison, and give proper care to the sick. You know, like those social workers the late Ms. Rand, the atheistic market-fundamentalist avatar, held in such deep contempt.

Not incidentally, by the way, Jesus also instructed us to pay our taxes. (Matthew 22:21)

Jesus most certainly did not teach us that the accumulation of wealth was virtuous on its own merits or any signifier of favour in the eyes of God. Indeed, he said the opposite: “…It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.” (Matthew 19:24)

So if it’s rampant consumerism that bothers modern North American Christians, they ought to speak up about the corporations that encourage this behaviour and the right-wing governments that slavishly enable them, indeed, the whole capitalist system that depends on it.

Above all, if Christians want us to put Christ back into Christmas – where, arguably, He belongs – they need to start the process themselves by letting His teachings govern their actions.

If they won’t, who but Christians themselves can be blamed for the “War on Christmas”?

Happy Holidays!

This post also (re)appears on

Join the Conversation


  1. So. You’re a Christian; I am not. And yet, there is much here we both agree with; go figure.

    My problem with the “put the Christ back into Christmas” crowd, is that it kind of excludes non-Christians, whether of different faiths, or no faith like myself, from participating in what is, after all, not just a Christian religious festival like so many others, but a well-established secular cultural practice in most Western societies. There is much about the Christmas message that secular humanists like myself can support, like peace on Earth and good will towards men (& women, to update the somewhat dated phrase). And such Christmas traditions as giving to the poor and unfortunate, lending a hand at soup kitchens and so on, are valuable contributions to a healthy society even if they are not undertaken with a spiritual motivation but simply to be decent towards one another. But those that would have us re-emphasize the Christianity of Christmas, would then logically exclude those of who are not Christians from all of that. So, for example, I could haughtily bypass the Sally Ann kettle, while burdened down with the armful of gifts I’ve bought for my family members, with “I’m not a Christian, so I don’t have to give you one thin dime”? Maybe then I wouldn’t be a heel, just respecting the Christian nature of Christmas… Such is the logical consequence of putting Christ back into Christmas.

    As for me, have a very Merry (secular cultural tradition with religious roots) Christmas, and a Happy New Year (remembering when saying that, that we are using a calendar developed by a Pope, which replaced one developed by a pagan Emperor of Rome, but which oddly the Orthodox Church still uses).

    1. Yes, my eyebrows arched slightly at Blogger Dave’s self-relevatory column. What’s wrong with putting the “con” back in consumerism? As a man of declining faith in human constructs, I’m inclining increasingly toward the view we humans don’t have much of a choice on our emotional impulses. We incline naturally to co-operative behaviour that may seem even loving. We are also by natural inclination mean and self-interested. So I don’t see as valid juxtaposing different world views at this time of year. Still, keep on doing your thing, Blogger Dave. You consistently produce some of the best writing to be found on the Internet. In the meantime, I’m trying to put the Sol back in Solstice — and it’s working!

  2. My annual greeting.

    From all of us at our household, including the pets, please accept, with no obligation, implied or implicit, our best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, gender neutral, culturally ambiguous celebration of the winter solstice holidays, originally but not exclusively known as Saturnalia, Brumalia, Uttarayana or Dies Natalis Solis Invicti, practised within the most joyous traditions of the religious or secular persuasion of your choice, but with respect for the religious or secular preferences of others. Additionally, we wish you a fiscally successful and medically uncomplicated recognition of the generally accepted calendar year 2017, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures and without regard to the race, creed, colour, religious, or sexual predilection of the wisher.

    (Disclaimer: By accepting this greeting, you are accepting these terms: This greeting is subject to clarification or withdrawal. It implies no promise by the wisher to actually implement any of the wishes for her/himself or others and no responsibility for any unintended emotional stress these greetings may bring to those not caught up in the holiday spirit.)

  3. How did it come to be that the corporate media was convinced not to look into the nutjob preacher at Stephen Harper’s old church before he became ‘dear leader’ and now Kenney’s christian counselors get the white glove treatment too?

  4. This is a very appropriate blog for this time of the year. It is the consumerism that is at war with the ideas and spirit of Christianity, and not the secular liberals and others who are blamed for it. It is interesting that the people who accuse and myself of playing the victim card here, when it is Conservative Christians who play the biggest victims. The fact that Christmas is a statutory holiday and is predominant in our culture, the fact that some people don’t celebrate the holiday or say Merry Christmas is cause for these people to have a meltdown is funny, but also sad. Their should follow David’s counsel and focus on the core message of the Beatitudes. If they won’t someone to blame for the War on Christmas, I would take that role from Jon Stewart and say that I am responsible(even though I am not)!!!! Merry Christmas, Happy Christmas, Season’s Greetings, and Happy New Year!!!!

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.