Thursday, December 27, 2007

Two Christmases



I just celebrated Christmas, both of them. I think that we've all heard before the voices of people bemoaning the excesses and business of the Christmas season, glanced over article after article offering tips for de-stressing the holidays. I think a large percentage of people are coming to the conclusion that Christmas, as it is currently celebrated in America, is out of balance, somewhat out of control. But the conclusion that I have come to this Christmas is that there are actually two very distinct holidays that are taking place at the same time: Christian Christmas and secular Christmas.

After a year of sadly neglecting my spiritual disciplines, I decided that I would make a concerted effort to participate in this advent season. I resolved to pray and fast according to the practice of the Church. As part of my regular prayer time, I decided to read the Philokalia (a compilation of Orthodox monastic writings). As I read and prayed, one idea became more and more clear: the key to prayer is the abandonment of distractions, the discovery of silence. The writings emphasize a detachment from worldy cares of all sorts, all appetites, all possessions.

Meanwhile, I couldn't help but feel that secular Christmas is a daunting barrage of distractions.
And all this time, I have been attempting to participate in this advent season with quiet reverence and anticipation. I don't really have anything against secular Christmas per se; I just prefer Christian Christmas. I prefer the season of quiet contemplation and anticipation.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

In the December '07 issue of First Things Joseph Bottum published a fine article: The End of Advent.

In 1952 C.S. Lewis published a fine article: What Christmas Means to Me.

The latter fine article has been an annual reading for my advent preparation--it is a funny, but serious look at the "three things that go by the name of Christmas." The one he takes umbrage with is "the commercial raquet."

J. Bottum may also make my annual reading with his article that exactly states what bothers me about "secular Christmas." It is precisely backwards. Lewis also comments on this in an aside that those who DO make it to Christmas through the gauntlet of Secular requirements for the season, are in no mood for celebrating anything.

For us Christmas, and the necessary feasting that follows our fasting preparations, BEGINS on December 25th.

It is a worthy way to celebrate Christmas, and a rewarding one.

Anonymous said...

Correction: 1957

Here's Lewis's article

What Christmas Means to Me
By C.S. Lewis first published in 1957

Three things go by the name of Christmas. One is a religious festival. This is important and obligatory for Christians; but as it can be of no interest to anyone else, I shall naturally say no more about it here. The second (it has complex historical connections with the first, but we needn’t go into them) is a popular holiday, an occasion for merry-making and hospitality. If it were my business to have a ‘view’ on this, I should say that I much approve of merry-making. But what I approve of much more is everybody minding his own business. I see no reason why I should volunteer views as to how other people should spend their own money in their own leisure among their own friends. It is highly probable that they want my advice on such matters as little as I want theirs. But the third thing called Christmas is unfortunately everyone’s business.
I mean of course the commercial racket. The interchange of presents was a very small ingredient in the older English festivity. Mr Pickwick took a cod with him to Dingley Dell; the reformed Scrooge ordered a turkey for his clerk; lovers sent love gifts; toys and fruit were given to children. But the idea that not only all friends but even all acquaintances should give one another presents, or at least send one another cards, is quite modern and has been forced upon us by the shopkeepers. Neither of these circumstances is in itself a reason for condemning it. I condemn it on the following grounds.
1. It gives on the whole much more pain than pleasure. You have only to stay over Christmas with a family who seriously try to ‘keep’ it (in its third, or commercial, aspect) in order to see that the thing is a nightmare. Long before December 25th everyone is worn out¾physically worn out by weeks of daily struggle in overcrowded shops, mentally worn out by the effort to remember all the right recipients and to think out suitable gifts for them. They are in no trim for merry-making; much less (if they should want to) to take part in a religious act. They look far more as if there had been a long illness in the house.
2. Most of it is involuntary. The modern rule is that anyone can force you to give him a present by sending you a quite unprovoked present of his own. It is almost a blackmail. Who has not heard the wail of despair, and indeed of resentment when, at the last moment, just as everyone hoped that the nuisance was over for one more year, the unwanted gift from Mrs. Busy (whom we hardly remember) flops unwelcomed through the letter-box, and back to the dreadful shops one of us has to go?
3. Things are given as presents which no mortal ever bought for himself¾gaudy and useless gadgets, ‘novelties’ because no one was ever fool enough to make their like before. Have we really no better use for materials and for human skill and time than to spend them on all this rubbish?
4. The nuisance. For after all, during the racket we still have all our ordinary and necessary shopping to do, and the racket trebles the labour of it.
We are told that the whole dreary business must go on because it is good for trade. It is in fact merely one annual symptom of that lunatic condition of our country, and indeed of the world, in which everyone lives by persuading everyone else to buy things. I don’t know the way out. But can it really be my duty to buy and receive masses of junk every winter just to help the shopkeepers? If the worst comes to the worst I’d sooner give them money for nothing and write it off as a charity. For nothing? Why, better for nothing than for a nuisance.

Ishmael said...

Thanks for forwarding the C.S. Lewis article. He expresses a great deal of the sentiment that I was feeling. I held back from saying some things because I am trying to be less judgemental (that's a really hard one for me), but my concerns regarding the commercial holiday are nearly identical to Lewis'.

I don't want to be an idle complainer either; I only wish to speak in hopes of engendering some kind of positive action. My wife and I have been talking with our respective families about celebrating Christmas differently in the future. I hope that we can work toward that goal, toward a more holy holiday.

And for those who aren't religious, I hope you too can work toward a more meaningful and less obligatory and commercial holiday.

Jen said...

I agree with you, but I would also go on to say that I feel that, for me, there are two selves celebrating the Christmases--the secular me and the spiritual me. I don't feel this dichotomy any other time of year. I become distracted so easily by parties and presents (trying to buy the "right" gift for people becomes too important), and I don't consider myself a materialistic person. But it is just all too easy to lose sight of advent.

Jen said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.