Yes, Let’s Talk About Systematic Racism. So It’s Time to Talk About Planned Parenthood.

Sanger3

In a letter to Clarence Gamble, a man who favored sterilizing welfare recipients (more about him below), Margret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, wrote about her 1939 “Negro Project,” which promoted contraceptives to southern African Americans: 

“It seems to me from my experience where I have been in North Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee and Texas, that while the colored Negroes have great respect for white doctors they can get closer to their own members and more or less lay their cards on the table which means their ignorance, superstitions and doubts…. The ministers [sic] work is also important and also he should be trained, perhaps by the [Birth Control] Federation [renamed Planned Parenthood in 1942] as to our ideals and the goal that we hope to reach. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

Opponents of Planned Parenthood see this as clear evidence of Sanger’s racism. Others, even Angela Franks — a Sanger expert and staunch critic and opponent of Planned Parenthood — says the quote does not have to be interpreted as a racist comment. Franks says since there’s no hard evidence elsewhere of Sanger’s own words painting her as a racist, it’s possible Sanger wasn’t revealing a hidden agenda here, but imagining a misunderstanding on the part of the African American people she hoped to reach. 

I’ll leave it up to you to decide if Sanger was racist, but read the rest of this article first. (Yes, it’s long for a blog, but it’s worth your time.)

Even if Sanger wasn’t specifically racist, Franks writes, Sanger was unquestionably a “eugentic, elitist bigot.”

Yes, Sanger certainly was that, as I’ve documented by using Sanger’s own words in earlier blogs: Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood, In Her Own Words:

Reading Sanger’s Women and the New Race (1920) and The Pivot of Civilization (1922), one can’t not be hit by how she often spoke of birth control as a way to help the poor, yet at the same time she plainly despised the poor, the uneducated, the immigrant, and the disabled. You see, Sanger was a zealous, outspoken eugenicist. 

Eugenics is based on evolutionary theory, where humans are moved up the evolutionary ladder by promoting reproduction in “the strong” while impairing reproduction in “the weak.” It’s not much different than what dog breeders do except with people.

The most extreme example of eugenics was, of course, in Nazi Germany, but eugenicists like Sanger focused instead on things like birth control, sterilization, and abortion for “weeding out the unfit,” which she also referred to as “biological waste” and “biological and racial mistakes.” (For the record, when she speaks of “race” in her writings, she’s usually referring to the human race.)

To really get a good understanding of her attitude toward the poor, we only have to read Chapter IV of The Pivot of Civilization, titled “Philanthropy and Charity.” The chapter’s big idea is that organized charity is a “malignant social disease” because it leads to the poor surviving and reproducing. Yes, this is the founder — the legacy — of Planned Parenthood, someone they hold up as a hero still today.

 

SANGER’S PARTNERS AT PLANNED PARENTHOOD

But, despite all this, I guess we still can deny Sanger as a racist since her own writings are absent of any racist rhetoric. But what about the company she kept? Can that tell us about her views of “non-whites”? You can tell a lot about a person (and an organization) by the company she keeps, right?

Lothrop Stoddard

Stoddard was invited to join Sanger’s American Birth Control League (later renamed Planned Parenthood) after his book The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy became a best-seller. His book is about “the collapse of white supremacy and colonialism due to population growth among non-white people, rising nationalism in colonized nations, and industrialization in China and Japan” and advocates “restricting non-white migration into white nations.” It received a favorable review in Sanger’s magazine Birth Control Review, and he wrote articles for the Birth Control Review (see the December 1921 issue, for example) under Sanger’s editorship. He wrote in his book, “Black peoples have no historic pasts. Never having evolved civilizations of their own… The negro… has contributed virtually nothing. Left to himself, he remained a savage.”

Harry Laughlin

Laughlin was a sterilization advocate and lobbyist for Sanger’s organizations. He was on the House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization and helped pass the 1924 Immigration Act, which prevented immigration from Asia, set quotas on the number of immigrants from the Eastern Hemisphere, and provided funding and an enforcement mechanism to carry out the longstanding ban on other immigrants.”  He wanted to keep out what he called the “dross in American’s modern melting pot.” He promoted Naziism in the 1930s and worked with Burch (below) to prevent Jews from seeking asylum in the U.S.

Guy Irving Burch

Burch was another anti-immigration activist and eugenicist who lobbied for Sanger in Washington. He worked with Laughlin to prevent Jewish asylum in the U.S. He wrote on official letterhead of the National Committee for Federal Legislation of Birth Control (NCFLBC) that he fought for Americans against “being replaced by alien or negro stock, whether it be by immigration or by overly high birth rates among others in this country,” who were “cancerous growth that eats away the vital organs of its victims.” Sanger supported him in setting up the Population Reference Bureau and helped find him a job with the Birth Control Federation of America (later renamed Planned Parenthood) in 1937.

Clarence Gamble

Gamble was born a millionaire (his family name is the “Gamble” in Procter and Gamble); he was introduced to eugenics at Princeton; and he was a close associate to Burch (above). He was all about sterilization, especially on welfare recipients. He tested experimental contraceptives on poor women both in America and India (seemingly without their knowing), including a saltwater solution as a kind of spermicide. He served as Pennsylvania representative for Planned Parenthood from 1933-1946 and was on the Planned Parenthood executive committee from 1939-1942. Sanger continued to support him even when others in Planned Parenthood did not, and she hoped he would take her position as president of Planned Parenthood in 1953.

D. Kenneth Rose

Rose was national director of Sanger’s Birth Control Federation of America (later renamed Planned Parenthood). He explained the importance of Planned Parenthood’s work as “one-third of our population — the ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed [is] producing two thirds of all our children,” so the solution was to increase outreach to “the Negro and our migrant population.”

C.C. Little 

Like all these other guys, Little was a hardcore eugenicist involved in the American Birth Control League (later renamed Planned Parenthood). In the August 1926 issue of the Birth Control Review (under Sanger’s editorship), he wrote about the “immense diversity of racial elements” in New York and his desire to preserve the lack of diversity elsewhere in the U.S. “the way a chemist would prize a store of chemically pure substances.”

Hans Harmsen 

Finally, we come to a man who was a literal Nazi. As a physician in Germany, he supported a 1933 sterilization law for the disabled. Sanger supported him as the best candidate to lead the German birth-control movement, and he continued to be pro-sterilization and pro-eugenics in post-Nazi Germany. He became president of Pro Familia, the German affiliate of Planned Parenthood in 1952 and held other leadership roles in Pro Familia until a 1984 investigative report revealed his Nazi past. Was Planned Parenthood unaware of this? Not likely. Pro Familia certainly was aware.

Birth Control Review, November, 1923.

DO BLACK LIVES MATTER TO PLANNED PARENTHOOD?

It’s no secret that from the very beginning the majority of Planned Parenthood’s birth control clinics have been in areas populated by minorities.

Their school-based clinics were no different. I worked in an urban NJ high school of predominately African American and Hispanic students for 16 years starting in 2000 and witnessed the presence of Planned Parenthood firsthand in the community center and after-school program inside the school. Of the 100 school-based clinics opened in the 90s, not one was in a “white” school. None were at suburban middle schools. Every one was in a predominantly African American, minority, or non-white school.

According to some statistics from a few decades ago, Health and Human Services Administration reported 43% of all abortions were performed on African Americans and another 10% on Hispanics. African Americans made up only 11% of the total U.S. population and Hispanics only 8%. The National Academy of Sciences found 32% of all abortions were on minority mothers.

According to information from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services from 1986, by 1975 a little more than 1% of the African American population had been aborted, which increased to nearly 2.5% by 1980 and reached 3% by 1985. By 1992, it jumped to 4.5%. It was reported elsewhere that in many African American communities by 1986, there were 3 abortions for every 1 birth. And we won’t even get into the stats on sterilization.

In 1987, a group of ministers, parents, and educators in the African American community recognized this and filed a suit against the Chicago Board of Education, accusing these Planned Parenthood school-based clinics of being “designed to control the Black population.” 

 

2020: THE LEADING CAUSE OF BLACK DEATHS

These issues aren’t in the past. In February of 2020, Walt Blackman, an African American member of the Arizona House of Representatives, wrote an opinion piece titled “Abortion: The Overlooked Tragedy for Black Americans.” In it he shared some eye-opening statistics.

African Americans have more abortions than any other population group. White women are five times less likely to have an abortion compared to a black woman. Though African American woman make up 14% of the child-bearing population, they make up 36% of all abortions. In the African American community, for every 1,000 live births, there are 474 abortions. Of the 44 million children murdered by abortion since the 1973 Roe Vs. Wade decision, 19 million have been African Americans.

A study in 2011 revealed that abortion was the leading cause of death among African Americans, and a 2012 study by Protecting Black Lives found that 79% of Planned Parenthood abortion clinics are within walking distance of minority communities.

Yes, we need to talk about systematic racism and oppression, and we need to include Planned Parenthood in that conversation.

 

Main sources: 

Margaret Sanger’s Eugenic Legacy: the Control of Female Fertility by Angela Franks

Grand Illusions: The Legacy of Planned Parenthood, Fourth Edition by George Grant

Is Our Culture “Post-Christian”… or “Post-Secular”? Or Both? (w/ Book Review)

post-christian

UNDERSTANDING POST-CHRISTIAN CULTURE

Gene Edward Veith’s book Post-Christian: A Guide to Contemporary Thought and Culture (Crossway, 2020) is more of a State of the Union Address than a call to arms. The topics covered in this book are wide and sweeping; and though Veith provides suggestions to the church sprinkled throughout on how to respond, overall the book is a photograph of the landscape — a statement on where we’re at in Western culture and where the church stands within that culture.

It’s a readable, relatively quick book for the amount of land it covers. He covers trends in modern Western thought, worldview, religion, science, technology, politics, sexuality, our ideas about reality, the body, truth, certainty, and even newer cultural phenomenons like intersectionality, transgenderism, transhumanism, genetic engineering, sex robots, and the loss of community. As I said, he covers a lot of ground! 

Veith’s work is insightful and important. As any decent missionary, pastor, or church planter can tell you, Christians need to understand the cultural context of where they’re doing ministry. Post-Christian is certainly a good guide to give us the big picture of the spirit of the age and the challenges facing the church.

 

POST-SECULAR?

Depending on how attuned someone is to the changing culture, some of the information in Post-Christian may be surprising. But perhaps what is most surprising is Veith’s conclusion that we’re not just living in a post-Christian culture, but also a post-secular culture. 

He writes that today’s current version of secularism, which is usually marked by a rejection of religion, is only “skin deep because under the surface we find interior spirituality—often vague and poorly thought through, drawing on pagan elements old and new.” God has created us to know him. So, we are — by nature and design — religious creatures, even if we deny it. Thus, when Christian faith is abandoned, other spirituality rushes in to fill the void.

This post-secular religion, the child of Western postmodern thinking, is a cafeteria of pick-and-choose, including things like astrology, reincarnation, nature spirits, and self-deification (seeking the “god within”) but all “wholly internalized, ethereal spirituality” — which, of course, makes no moral or convictional demands on the individual. In other words, they can be the “god” of their own reality; they can be spiritual without self-denial, self-sacrifice, or even inconvenience — a religion based solely on self. So, where God made humans in his own image (Genesis 1:27), humans are making God into their own image — or, at the very least, in their own preferences.

Nowhere is this better seen than in the growing movement of what I call “Technology Cults” —  people who are looking to merge biological life with technology (called transhumanism) to achieve eternal life and propel humankind to god-like status (not unlike something you’d see on Black Mirror, the Netflix series.) But all “new” heresies are really just old news. Mixed in with the new is also a lot of the old. For example, as more people return to ancient pagan (or “New Age”) practices, people contacting Christian churches looking for exorcisms have spiked!

Peter Jones in his book The Other Worldview: Exposing Christianity’s Greatest Threat, draws the same conclusions about Western culture not just being post-Christian, but post-secular. He describes it as “the rebirth of ancient paganism, ” a “modern embrace of, principles originally found in the ancient spirituality of the pre-Christian, pagan world.” Jones writes, “Spirituality has become a do-it-yourself life hobby that blends ancient Eastern practices with modern consumer sensibilities.” And so, this is where the modern mantra “I’m spiritual, not religious” grows from.

Based on how things are going — despite what has been assumed (and often proclaimed by ardent atheists) — as “societies have grown more modern, they have not become less religious.” Perhaps much of secular culture has turned away from traditional religions — dreaded “organized religion” — but they’ve traded it in for disorganized religion. Veith concludes, “So scholars no longer accept the ‘secular hypothesis,’ the assumption that as a society becomes more modern, it becomes less religious.” Post-Christian does not mean post-religious.

 

THE DYING CHURCH?

Unfortunately, at the same time, religious institutions are becoming more secular, and the Christian church is not impervious to such things. This is not surprising as the battle between theologically liberal (mainline) and theologically conservative Christianity has raged for over 100 years. 

As another example of the dogged religiousness of humankind, the author writes about the (unintentionally ironic) “atheist church” movement, which has tried to have all the benefits of church without God. In one of Veith’s more humorous insights, he comments:

“Do you reject the existence of God except as a metaphor? Do you deny the authority and truth claims of the Bible? Do you believe traditional Christianity is outdated and oppressive? You might be an atheist. Or you might be a mainline [liberal] Protestant.”

As someone a lot smarter than me pointed out — something that is quite obvious — some time ago: Liberal Christianity and traditional, historical, biblical Christianity are not the same religion. They’re two totally different faiths. After all, as Veith plainly drew attention to, the beliefs of theologically liberal (mainline) Christians differ little from the beliefs of atheists. Therefore, “Post-Christian Christianity needs to be desecularized,” and even theologically conservative churches need to be aware of how the surrounding secular culture affects the thinking of their congregation (and leadership). 

It also has to be remembered that churches that have adopted secular or theologically liberal views have usually consciously done so to make themselves “relevant” to the culture, yet these liberal churches are the exact churches that have been in steady decline for decades. The liberal church is not thriving or growing. Think about it: If all the church is is a lousy imitation of the world, what does it have to offer that isn’t already readily available elsewhere?

 

BUT THE TRADITIONAL CHURCH IS DYING TOO, RIGHT?

So, the culture is growing more pagan. The liberal church is in steady decline. But what about the traditional, historical, conservative, orthodox, Bible-believing church? How is it doing? Isn’t it in decline too? Well, it all depends on how you look at it.

Yes, church attendance is down in general, but what seems to be happening is a “refining of the church.” Looking only at church attendance may be the easiest way to conduct a survey concerning Christian growth or decline, but it also has its limits. Based on the studies of Ed Stetzer, “The percentage of convictional Christians… has held steady over the years.” This may be the most surprising thing one finds in Post-Christian, but Veith (with Stetzer) isn’t the only one making this point. For instance, see Glenn Stanton’s book The Myth of the Dying Church: How Christianity Is Actually Thriving in America and the World. (For the record, I haven’t read Stanton’s book yet, but I’ve heard interviews with him — and others — making the same point.) 

Now, the thing to note in Stetzer’s assessment is that it is “convictional Christians” who are holding steady. Instead of just making general studies of church attendance or of anyone who labels themselves as “Christian,” Stetzer and Veith consider that calling oneself a “Christian” doesn’t make one a true follower of Christ. There’s a lot of cultural Christianity out there, folks. So, when we look at someone’s commitment to following Christ, church attendance of those who take their faith seriously — i.e. devout Christians — are not decreasing.

In fact, it looks like the more theologically conservative churches are growing steadily. The slight decline in attendance at evangelical churches over the years has to do with the “cultural Christians.” So, it’s not the case that devout Christians are leaving the faith in droves, but church-goers who never were invested much in the first place are coming clean. The growing acceptability of atheism has allowed these people to be honest on where they stand on God and the church: 

“The nominal believers are leaving. There is no longer a cultural pressure to be in church, so those who used to attend out of a desire to be socially respectable are no longer bothering… Increasingly, the only ones left in the churches are the true believers. Such defections, ironically, strengthen the church. Just as the refining process burns away the dross to extract the precious metal, the hostility of secularism is purifying the church.”

Mark Twain may or may not have once said, “The reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated.” It seems Christianity can say the same. 

In fact, the church is growing at an alarming — well, alarming to secularists anyhow — rate worldwide. “If the United States and Europe are becoming post-Christian, the rest of the world is rushing into Christianity.” Compare the 286 million Christians in 2010 in North American to the 544 million in Latin America, 493 million in Africa, and 352 million in Asia. Those who claim Christianity is “the white man’s religion” need to look at the global picture. By 2050, says religious scholar Philip Jenkins, only one-fifth of Christians will be “white.” In fact, the most common Christian worldwide today is a brown-skinned woman. Post-Christian even lays out how Scandinavian countries, upheld by many in the U.S. as secular utopias, have a solid, devout Christian presence.

Not only are church numbers growing worldwide, but the Christians in Africa, South America, and Asia take the Bible seriously. They’re theologically conservative. This, ironically, puts them at odds with many Western churches who have liberal leanings. Some theologically liberal denominations are finding their denominational brothers and sisters in other countries aren’t willing to set aside the Bible to conform to secular cultural demands.

This was seen recently when the United Methodists voted to overturn certain policies concerning homosexuality; it was the African United Methodists who kept the church where it has traditionally (and biblically) stood for centuries. (And now it’s looking like the United Methodists, which is considered primarily a liberal denomination in the U.S., may split in two.) Let Veith point out the irony: “Western liberal theologians — whose social gospel praises multiculturalism, denounces Western colonialism, and lauds racial diversity — now find themselves as a beleaguered white minority in opposition to black Africans.” 

Veith concludes, “In this vast sea of faith, Americans and Europeans occupy a small island of secularism, like teenagers fixated on their cell phones, oblivious to what is happening all around them. It turns out that this is not a post-Christian world after all.”

 

*I received a review copy of Post-Christian: A Guide to Contemporary Thought and Culture (2020) by Gene Edward Veith Jr. from publisher Crossway.

7 Apologetics Podcasts Worth Giving a Listen + 1

Radio2

Other than thought-provoking entertainment, especially when you’re stuck in a car, there are three big benefits to listening to the right Christian podcasts:

(1)  The right podcasts give you access to topnotch Christian scholars and thinkers, and these people have a wealth of experience and knowledge.

(2)  Even as a former seminary student and an avid reader, I’ve come to realize the knowledge I’ve gained from my podcast listening is substantial (and the effort is minimal). Plus, podcasts often point me to books and other resources for going deeper.

(3)  Podcasts are up-to-date, addressing current events and topics of importance to Christians right now.

So, even if you don’t have a long commute, pick a podcast to listen to while you’re folding laundry or mowing the lawn or eating breakfast.  If you can’t listen to a whole show in one sitting, so what? — Listen to it in parts, even if it’s just for 10 minutes at a time.

Way back in 2013, I wrote a blog recommending Christian podcasts, so I figured it was time to update that article. (Plus, I’ve been busy with other projects and ministries, so I’ve been neglecting GFTM!)

The first three podcasts listed below also appeared on my 2013 list. Clearly, these three have been staples of my listening for years. So, where all of these podcasts are recommended, the first three have stood the test of time.

 

(1) UNBELIEVABLE?

Unbelievable-

This British radio show is primarily civil debates/discussions between people of opposing views on various topics, whether it’s Christians debating atheists or other non-Christians or Christians debating Christians about issues within the church.

Justin Brierley, the host, does a great job of fairly mediating the debates/discussions, making sure both sides have time to flesh out their views and that the listener doesn’t get lost if it gets too academic.

Unbelievable? gives you a good introduction at controversial issues and exposes you to opposing views on that issue. The subject matter varies from current cultural topics (transgenderism, social justice, etc.) to topics concerning the existence of God and the trustworthiness of the Bible to other philosophical and theological questions.

Also, check out Justin Brierley’s Youtube series The Big Conversation.

 

(2) STAND TO REASON

STR

Host Greg Koukl has been challenged and tested for the over 27 years he’s been doing this show. He opens most episodes by sharing some thoughts concerning Christianity or a cultural topic, and then he answers callers’ questions on any number of topics encompassing Christianity — from personal application of biblical teachings to interpreting scripture to philosophical issues and apologetics.

Koukl’s ability to confidently, satisfactorily, and evenhandedly answer the vast diversity of questions he receives is testimony to his wealth of experience and what a valuable resource he is. Part of the fun of listening to Stand to Reason is thinking, “Wow, that’s a tough question! How will Greg possibly answer this?” and then listening to Greg’s response.

Also, check out Koukl’s two books, Tactics and The Story of Reality, and Stand to Reason’s website as a resource.

 

(3) THE BRIEFING

breifing

Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, the largest seminary in the U.S., examines current world news from a Christian perspective.  New episodes are posted every Monday through Friday. In each 20-minutes episode, Dr. Mohler gives an overview of current events, and then he analyzes them from a biblical worldview.

The Briefing is a great, quick way to keep up on important news and issues that should interest Christians one way or another, some of which get lost in all of the noise of this media age. Dr. Mohler draws from a variety of established media sources, both left- and right-leaning, and he makes all the articles he refers to available on his website.

Dr. Mohler has a background in radio, so each episode is crisp, smooth, and professional. The historical background and insight Dr. Mohler often provides during his commentary is priceless.

Also, check out Dr. Mohler’s other occasional podcast Thinking in Public.

 

(4) THE JUDE 3 PROJECT

Jude3

The Jude 3 Project exists to help Christians “know what they believe and why they believe it” with a distinctive focus on the African American community.

Like most of the podcasts on this list, the Jude 3 Project does a great job of addressing theological, cultural, and apologetic topics concerning Christians, but it also does a great job showing how both historically and biblically Christianity is not just “the white man’s religion.”

The Jude 3 Project has introduced me to many Christian scholars addressing specific topics which concern the African American community (and should concern all Christians) that I wouldn’t have been exposed to otherwise. The Jude 3 Project is providing an important service (and becoming an important resource) to all Christians.

Also, check out their website for resources.

 

(5) THREE CHORDS AND THE TRUTH

3Chords

Three Chords and the Truth wins the prize for the best balance of being informative and fun.

Each 40-minute episode has three parts. The first part focuses on apologetics – arguments for the trustworthiness of the New Testament and the resurrection of Jesus. Part two is some brief  “geek talk,” where they discuss a “tough topic” in comic books, sci-fi, and fantasy. (Who would win in a fight: Gandalf or Yoda? What’s more powerful: the Infinity Gauntlet or the Elder’s Wand from Harry Potter?) Finally, they look at a classic rock song from a theological perspective.

Honestly, I’ve learned just as much about rock history as Christian apologetics listening to this podcast.

Also, Timothy Paul Jones, one of the hosts, is a wealth of information. Check out his books.

 

(6) THINK BIBLICALLY

thinkingbiblically

I just started listening to this weekly podcast, but it has two top-notch hosts, Sean McDowell and Scott Rae, professors at Biola University’s Talbot School of Theology, a key school in training Christian apologists. The format is easy: a 30-minute interview with a Christian author or thinker.

Looking through their backlog of interviews, I see nothing but names worth listening to on topics worth thinking about.

Also, Sean McDowell, though he’s the one doing the interviewing instead of being interviewed, is a great teacher. Be sure to seek out his other work.

 

(7) APOLOGIA RADIO

apologia

Apologia Radio wasn’t on my 2013 list of podcasts, but I’ve been listening to it regularly almost as long as my “Top 3.” If there’s a podcast on this list that’s going to ruffle a lot of feathers, it’s this one. Apologia doesn’t pull any punches (and they have fun while doing it).

They’re especially good with addressing atheism, abortion, and cults, like Mormonism. They hold strong stances on some theological views, such as Calvinism, presuppositional apologetics, and post-millennialism eschatology. (If you don’t know what those things are, you will if you listen to Apologia Radio long enough.)

Overall, even if you don’t agree with every stance the guys and gal of Apologia take, you will be challenged, and they do a great job of engaging the culture from a biblical worldview.

Also check out Joy of Apologia’s other podcast, Sheologians, and Apologia’s many Youtube videos.

 

(8) THIS AMERICAN LIFE

TAL

Though this wasn’t on my 2013 list, it certainly should’ve been. This American Life is not a Christian show, so it wasn’t on my last list and it shouldn’t be on this list, but I’m including it anyway. I’ve been listening to This American Life longer than every podcast on this list.

Each episode is an hour long and centers on a (loose) theme with (give or take) three true stories connected to that theme. The beauty of this show is that it often centers on people and things you would’ve never heard about anywhere else, and the stories surrounding them are engrossing, entertaining, and often quirky.

I love this show. No, it’s not a Christian show, but it’s professional journalism with master story-telling at its best.

Keeping Chaos in Christmas: Hitler Vs. Christmas

hitlerChristmas

If there were ever a historical person who would surely be a Grinch at Christmas time, I’m sure many people would put forth that that person would be Hitler.

Dr. Gerry Bowler’s book Christmas in the Crosshairs: Two Thousand Years of Denouncing and Defending the World’s Most Celebrated Holiday is an interesting romp through history showing (among other things) how the world’s most celebrated celebration simply can’t be ignored — not by anyone — not by communists, nor fascists, nor even the National Socialist German Workers’ Party — better know as the Nazis.

In one of the most fascinating sections of the book, Dr. Bowler documents how the unstoppable force that is Christmas was addressed by the totalitarian regimes of the 20th Century. The most interesting and, dare I say, outlandish attempt to stop Christmas was by none other than Hitler.

 

THE NAZI REBRANDING OF CHRISTMAS

Hitler understood that Christmas tradition was “deeply embedded in the German consciousness” and in “what it meant to be truly German.” Therefore, it wouldn’t work to simply ban it.

Even before the 1933 elections that brought Hitler into power, the Nazis used Christmas to advance their anti-Semitic agenda by urging consumers to boycott Jewish businesses. This included picketing and vandalizing Jewish-owned businesses.

After 1933, Goebbels and his Ministry of National Enlightenment and Propaganda went to work rebranding Christmas. Not only did they use Christmas to promote their hateful nationalism, but they would eventually try to wipe the “Christ” out of Christmas. After all, what could the most notorious anti-Semitic regime in history have to do with a season celebrating the most influential Jew of all time?

In the same year, a film was released depicting the Nativity with Mary, Joseph, and the newborn Prince of Peace not only beneath a portrait of Hitler, but surrounded by Nazi stormtroopers and medieval German knights.

Also in 1933, the German Christian Movement took control of the national Protestant Church and aligned it with the Nazis. Jesus — a Jewish Middle Eastern man — was recast as an Aryan victim of the Jews! Alters were decorated with swastikas, and pagan ceremonies were introduced. Nativity plays were banned. Pastors like Martin Niemoller and Dietrich Bonhoeffer resisted, resulting in imprisonment for one and martyrdom for the other.

“Hosanna” and “Hallelujah” were removed from songs for being too Hebrew. The Norse god Baldur replaced Jesus in songs. Children were taught a new version of the classic German Christmas carol “Stille Nacht” (Silent Night):

“Silent night, Holy night, All is calm, all is bright. Adolf Hitler is Germany’s star, Showing us greatness and glory afar, Bringing us Germans the might.”

A Christmas narrative song called Heliand, which begins with John 1:1 (“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God“), changed into a song about “German myth, dragons, adultery, blood feuds, and racism.” To top it all off, Jesus was presented as the ancient Germanic god Wotan (also know as one-eyed Odin of Norse mythology). Perhaps against his own instincts for self-preservation, the president of the Reich Musical Chamber actually protested in 1937 against an attempt to change the biblical lyrics to Handel’s masterpiece Messiah.

In the years following, Christmas became more nationalized, secularized, and paganized in Germany. Hitler issued instructions on how to celebrate Christmas correctly. Eventually, teams of trained women would be flown into conquered lands to instruct the locals.

HITLER, NO FRIEND TO JEW OR CHRISTIAN

Today, it’s not uncommon to hear anti-Christians claim that Hitler, one of the most notoriously evil men in history, was a Christian. With just a little historical research, one can discover that Hitler Youth sang,

“No evil priest can prevent us from feeling that we are the children of Hitler. We follow not Christ, but Horst Wessel!”

(Horst Wessel was a leader of the Nazi stormtroopers.)

And banners in Berlin read,

“Down with a Christ who allows himself to be crucified! The German God cannot be a suffering God! He is a God of power and strength!”

This doesn’t sound like the slogans of a Christ-friendly regime.

Some of the Nazi inner circle, including Heinrich Himmler and other SS leaders, were true pagans, worshippers of the ancient Germanic gods. One SS leader said, “We live in the age of the final confrontation with Christianity.” Christmas was rebranded as the winter solstice, the Julfest (Yuletide) season. A spinning sun, a symbol of the solstice, replaced traditional Christmas symbols.

December 6th has been celebrated for centuries as the day of Saint Nicholas (the precursor of our modern Santa Claus), but in Nazi Germany it became Wotan’s Day. The Nazis rewrote history, claiming December 6th had belonged to Wotan, “The Rider on the Grey Horse,” all along, but then Christianity showed up and replaced him with St. Nick.

Despite some current arguments that our modern Santa Claus was based on Wotan/Odin, the fact remains that Saint Nicolas was established as a magically flying, miracle-working saint long before Christian contact with Scandinavian. (To read about the history of Saint Nicolas and Santa Claus, see our previous article.) The first people in history, according to Bowler, to make the argument that Wotan/Odin was the original Santa Claus were the Nazis.

 

A LOSING BATTLE

As Hitler led Germany into war in 1939, the Christian message — with all its ideas of “peace on earth” and “turning the other cheek” — didn’t mesh well with the Nazi vision, to say the least. It’s likely Hitler had to take into account that Germany has a long, rich history of Christianity (Heck, Martin Luther — who launched the Protestant Reformation — was German!) and everyday Germans loved Christmas.

Therefore, the solution was “to avoid any direct attack on the traditional Christmas but to use the state’s power, whenever possible, to promote a non-Christian view of the holiday.”

It makes sense that Hitler would try to suppress the holiday celebrating the birth of the one who taught, “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy… Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God” (Matt 5:7, 9) and “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven” (Matt 5:44-45).

Can anything be more oppositional to what Hitler was trying to accomplish?

But it must be noted that despite being surrounded by Nazi pressure, world warfare, and moral deterioration, evidence exists that the true nature of Christmas could not be removed and, thus, continued in the hearts of the German people. (For example, see below an image of the “Stalingrad Madonna,” drawn on the back of a map during the Battle of Stalingrad.)

Death could not suppress God’s Son. Is it any wonder Hitler failed as well?

READ:

Keeping Chaos in Christmas: Santa Claus – Christian Saint or Pagan Satan?

Keeping Chaos in Christmas: Pagan or Christian Celebration? A Short History of December 25th

Why is Christmas on December 25th?

Me & My Wife VS. My Kid & St. Nick: Breaking It to a 5-Year-Old Santa Isn’t Real

MadonnaofStalingrad1

 

Keeping Chaos in Christmas: Santa Claus – Christian Saint or Pagan Satan?

 

stnicholas-painting-wmaster

Santa Claus is “the dominate fictional character in our world. Neither Micky Mouse nor Sherlock Holmes, Ronald McDonald nor Harry Potter wields a fraction of the influence that Santa does… His image is recognized and loved all around the planet,” Dr. Gerry Bowler, history professor at the University of Manitoba, writes in his book Santa Claus: A Biography.

In our last GFTM article, Keeping the Chaos in Christmas: Pagan or Christian Celebration? A Short History of the Battle Over December 25th, we looked at what Dr. Bowler documents so well in another one of his books, Christmas in the Crosshairs. As we saw, many of the modern debates about Christmas have been going on since the beginning, including whether the celebration of Christ’s birth has been too heavily influenced by pagan folk customs. 

Of course, one can’t enter into these debates without the jolly fat man being considered either.

Where it’s difficult to trace when exactly and to what extent many of these pagan folk traditions entered the Christian celebration of Christmas, historic evidence shows us this happened after 300 AD over a period of centuries and varied from place to place as Christianity spread far and wide. (For more details, see the previous article.)

Gift-giving goes way back to the pagan festivals Christmas eventually replaced, and there is a “long association between Christmas and gift-giving” that was “long criticized by the church” for materialism and “lingering paganism.” But the popularity of these customs among the everyday people won out, and eventually the church Christianized them. Gift-giving for Christmas was linked by the church with charity to the poor and the bringing of gifts to the newborn Jesus.

Yet, the gift-giving Saint Nicholas didn’t appear until the 12th Century.

SAINT NICHOLAS, SUPER HERO SAINT

Traditions existed of gifts being delivered to children by various miraculous saints on the eves of their holy days: Saint Barbara, Saint Martin, Saint Lucia, the Wise Men, and others.

But Saint Nicholas, by far, was the most popular.

By 1,100 AD, Saint Nicholas’ popularity was rivaled only by the Virgin Mary. Saint Nicholas was “the most powerful male saint on the Church calendar: the patron of sailors, Vikings, Russians, Normans, barrel-makers, thieves, perfumers, picklers, florists, haberdashers, and many more – but especially of children.”

Little, if anything, can be said with any historical certainty about St. Nicholas. He was the bishop of Myra on the coast of modern Turkey in the early 4th Century. He allegedly died on December 6, 343 AD.

In the 12th Century, he was believed to be a magical deliverer of small gifts to kids on the eve of his day, December 6. Children prayed to him and left out their shoes to be filled with treats. But legend says he did much more than that.

He was a wonder worker of miracles; in fact, he was a darn super hero long before the first comic book was ever imagined. He rescued sailors, soldiers, children, starving people, and slaves.

He once saved three daughters from being sold into a life of prostitution by secretly delivering bags of gold to their poor father at night. Perhaps this has some truth to it as any non-super human could perform such a heroic act, but he also brought three murdered young men back from the dead after they were dismembered, shoved into barrels, and pickled! Apparently, he flew long before Superman entered the scene. He also was able to do what can only be called teleportation of both himself and others.

Clearly, he was a nurturing, passionate (super) man, but he was no wimp or pushover either. He often was portrayed as carrying a whip or rod. Children both loved and feared him. He expected children and others to keep up with their church lessons and to be moral.

My mother-in-law, who grew up in Germany, said when she was a child someone dressed as St. Nicholas visited their home. He asked her and her siblings if they had been behaving. Her father replied, “Not all of the time.” St. Nicholas then gave each of their hands a stern smack with his rod.

PROTESTING PROTESTANTS vs. ST. NICK

After the Protestant Reformation in 1517, the tradition of Saint Nicholas, along with devotion to other saints of the Catholic Church, came under fire and were banned in areas controlled by Protestants. In England, Elizabeth I in 1558 ended all Saint Nicholas related activities. In England and Scotland, gift-giving moved to New Year’s Day.

Saint Nicholas survived in eastern Europe, where the influence of the Reformation was weaker. He also survived in Holland, where there were both Catholic and Protestant areas. (It was the Dutch who would eventually bring Saint Nicolas to North America.)

Both German Catholics and Protestants replaced Saint Nicholas with a figure that was much more Bible-based: the Christ Child (das Christkindl). Thus, this moved the gift-giving from December 6 to Christmas Eve, December 24. (To read why Christmas is celebrated on December 25, see our previous article.)

But Baby Jesus just wasn’t menacing enough for parents. Parents wanted a figure that would instill some fear into their kids to help keep them in line. Saint Nicholas was benevolent but also a disciplinarian. After all, the dude carried a rod for beating children.

So, new figures started to appear who accompanied the Christ Child to substitute for Saint Nicolas’ rod. But these characters brought menacing to a whole new level! Many were downright horrifying: Aschenklaus (Nicholas in Ashes), Pelznickel or Belsnickel (Nicholas in Furs) and Ru-Klaus (Rough Nicholas), along with an “assortment of devils, witches with iron teeth, female disembowers, monstrous goats, or monks armed with switches” and Krampus, Hans Trapp, and Klabauf, who carried whips, chains, and sacks to steal away children.

Meanwhile, Catholics kids in southern Europe got the better end of the deal. They received gifts on Epiphany (January 6) from the Three Kings or the kindly good witch Befana or a “pooping log” (!?!).

THE MODERN MAKEOVER

It was not until the 1800s that our modern version of Santa Claus emerged.

In 1809, Washington Irving published a mock history called A History of New-York from the Beginning of the World to the End of the Dutch Dynasty. This satire introduced Saint Nicholas, who the Dutch loved and still celebrated on December 6. For those outside NY, this was the first time many heard of “any flying, supernatural, nocturnal Christmas Gift-Bringer.”

One year later in 1810, John Pintard, a prominent merchant and founder of the New-York Historical Society, gave out a picture of Saint Nicholas accompanied by a poem. St. Nick was pictured as a stern-looking man in a bishop’s robe with a rod and a halo over his head. (See below.)

StNick

More poems soon followed by others, one calling him “Sancte Claus.” In the next few years, variations of the Dutch name for Saint Nicolas, Sinterklaas, appeared in American print: Santa-claw, Santeclaus, Sandy Claw, Santiclaw, Sanctus Klaas. All were based on oral, folk traditions with slightly different takes on the gift-giving wonder worker.

In 1821, the first lithographed work in the U.S. was also the first to publish a picture of “Santeclaus.” It was titled The Children’s Friend, a poem complete with the essential modern staples for Santa Claus: gifts on Christmas Eve, a team of reindeer, snowy chimney tops. Bowler writes, “The Children’s Friend wrench[ed] Santa Clause out of his Dutch context and plac[ed] him in a winter setting appropriate to North America in December.”

A year later, Clement Clarke Moore wrote a series of poetry for his daughters and published them anonymously in the newspaper the following year, titled “Account of a Visit from St. Nicholas.” This would become the Christmas classic familiar to many today:

’Twas the night before Christmas, when all thro’ the house,
Not a creature was stirring, not even a mouse;
The stockings were hung by the chimney with care,
In hopes that St. Nicholas soon would be there
When, what to my wondering eyes should appear,
But a miniature sleigh, and eight tiny rein-deer
Down the chimney St. Nicholas came with a bound
He had a broad face, and a little round belly
That shook when he laugh’d, like a bowl full of jelly…
But I heard him exclaim, ere he drove out of sight —
Happy Christmas to all, and to all a good night.

Moore ignited an explosion of interest in this Saint Nicolas. Writers and illustrators competed to add to the story. “For decades there was no one standard version of the nocturnal visitor nor even agreement as to his name,” Bowler writes.  Some names included Kriss Kringle, Belsnickel, or some variation of “Santa Claus.”

Even his size was debated. Was he a small elf, even thumb-sized, to fit down chimneys? Was he a bearded grandfatherly-type or a smooth-faced youth? Sometimes he was dressed like a Dutch peddler; at other times he was dressed like George Washington.

By 1850, his home was securely set in the Arctic where he lived with his minions, a horde of elves. In the 1860s, German American cartoonist Thomas Nast in Harper’s solidified what Santa looks like today.

In Europe, most continued to hold on to their own versions of a magical figure delivering Christmas goodies, but the harsher holdouts from the Middle Ages — Perchta the Disemboweler in central Europe; Père Fouettard and his whip in France; the demonic Krampus, who stole children in Austria; the cannibal giant Gryla in Iceland; the horrifying goat-beast Joulopukki of Scandinavia — were replaced by a considerably more kinder, gentler version of “Santa.” Father Christmas, Pere Noel, Bobbo Natale, Samiclaus, and others emerged. They all were variations of the Santa Claus theme, but all were big-hearted, grandfatherly gift-givers.

Bowler writes, “By midcentury the American Santa Claus was not only a fixture in the stories told in American homes, he was a positive boon to merchants.” Whatever else he was, this Christmas gift-bringer ended up being a business man’s dream.

READ:

Keeping Chaos in Christmas: Pagan or Christian Celebration? A Short History of December 25th

Me & My Wife VS. My Kid & St. Nick: Breaking It to a 5-Year-Old Santa Isn’t Real

 

St Nicolas
Santa

Keeping Chaos in Christmas: Pagan or Christian Celebration? A Short History of December 25th.

ChristmasChaos

Last Christmas season, I wrote a blog about how my wife and I decided that we would not be doing “the Santa thing” with our children. Ironically, of all the stuff I’ve posted on this blog, this turned out to be the most controversial.

The other thing that struck me with mild amusement is no one even bothered engaging with our reasons, leading me to suspect that many giving me pushback only read the title and didn’t actually read the article. Among some of the debate, the weatherbeaten topic of whether Christmas has a pagan origin arose. Again, this has nothing to do with my wife and I deciding not to perpetuate the Santa tradition with our children, but since it’s a topic of debate that often comes up, I decided it was something worth looking more deeply in to.

I recently read Christmas in the Crosshairs: Two Thousand Years of Denouncing and Defending the World’s Most Celebrated Holiday by Gerry Bowler, who received his Ph.D. in history from King’s College in London. He’s a professor at the University of Manitoba and founding director of the Centre for the Study of Christianity and Contemporary Culture at Calgary’s Nazarene University College.

What Dr. Bowler’s book lays out so well is that the same debates that surround Christmas today have pretty much been going on since the beginning:

How should people celebrate the birth of Christ? Debated.

On what date was Jesus born? Debated.

Is December 25th really a pagan holiday? Debated.

Should Christians even celebrate the birth of Christ at all? Debated.

THE FIRST 3 CENTURIES

Christmas, as we celebrate it in the United States today, is a mixture of Christian and non-Christian elements. After all, the holiday is named after Christ and, regardless of when he was born, it marks the event of his birth as special. Are many of the traditions practiced during modern Christmas not based in a biblical Christian faith but instead in folk traditions from numerous cultures? Certainly. Do some of these folk traditions have pagan religious roots? It seems very likely.

If we go back to the first century to the New Testament, the earliest Christian documents we have, they never say whether Christians should celebrate the birth of Christ or not. Based on the New Testament and other historical evidence, we know what year Jesus was born, but nothing is said in the Bible about the specific month or day.

Interestingly, historic evidence tells us that several centuries passed before Christians even started celebrating the birth of Christ. The early church focused instead on the death and resurrection and imminent return of Christ. It should be noted only two of the four Gospel writers (Matthew and Luke) even included anything about Jesus’ birth in their narratives.

In the 2nd century, pagan critics like Celsus, a Greek philosopher, targeted Christianity and began mocking the virgin birth. The 2nd century also saw the rise of Gnosticism, a heresy which combined Christian beliefs with Greek philosophy. Gnostics denied that Christ truly took on flesh; it was only an illusion; he had remained spirit because the material world is, according to them, evil. At this time, Christian writers started focusing more on the birth of Christ.

By the third century, Christian writers had started speculating about when specifically Jesus was born but not particularly to celebrate it. Some favored dates in May or April, but December 25 and January 6 were dates also proposed. Though some opposed celebrating the birthday of Christ as a holy day, other evidence shows Christians started to take more interest in Christ’s day of birth.

In 312 AD, Emperor Constantine made Christianity a legal religion in the Roman Empire, and Christians now had the freedom to partake in holy days publicly. Christ’s birth was soon being celebrated. The exact year it became widely celebrated throughout the church is not known, but a document from 354 AD called Philocalian Chronograph, a sort-of almanac, lists it as a holy day on December 25.

THE BATTLE OVER DECEMBER 25th

Why December 25th?

Here are some often-repeated theories:

THEORY #1 – As the Roman Empire transitioned from paganism to Christianity, Constantine or some other Roman or Christian leaders chose to replace a pagan holiday on December 25th with a Christian holiday.

Or

THEORY #2 – Before Christianity was legalized in 312 AD, Christians would hold their own festivities at the same time as pagan holidays to camouflage their own gatherings. This would certainly make sense during the times Christians came under severe persecution by the Roman government.

Some of the usual suspects of the original pagan holiday for December 25 are:

  • The feast of Saturnalia.
  • Brumalia, dedicated to Saturn and Bacchus.
  • The birthday of the Unconquered Sun (Sol Invictus).
  • The birthday of the Iranian deity Mithra.
  • Some other winter solstice celebration.

PROBLEM #1 – Now, the big problem with both Theories #1 and #2 is simply this: there’s no evidence for them. Not that there’s no evidence for pagan festivals around the same time as December 25, but there’s nothing anywhere saying that Christians started celebrating Christmas during this time for one of these reasons.

Further, one telltale sign of a theory without evidence is a lack of specificity; in other words, it’s common to claim that Christmas is on December 25th because of a pagan holiday, yet (as the list above shows) no one seems able to say which holiday. In fact, the earliest evidence of anyone making this sort of argument dates from the twelve century!

PROBLEM #2 – Moreover, there’s other issues with the pagan-replacement theory. Modern scholarship says it’s quite possible that some of these pagan festivals, especially the birthday of the Unconquered Sun, were started after Christians began marking December 25 as a special day. On top of this, claims of similarities between the Iranian deity Mithra and Christ are complete fabrications, including the December 25th virgin birth of Mithra.

PROBLEM #3 – The mindset of the early church has to be taken into account. To the irk of their pagan neighbors, Christians and Jews have always been stubbornly exclusivists; they believe in only one true God and one true faith. Historical evidence tells us that “countless sermons and books by preachers and leaders of the young Church stressed the need to avoid any association with the world of idols and state cults.”

Though it appears pagan folk customs eventually intertwined with Christmas tradition over the centuries after Christianity became widely practiced, it’s highly doubtful the devout, often-persecuted early church would adopt pagan practices, especially when it was often persecuted by the surrounding pagans for not adopting their practices!

PROBLEM #4 – With this, no records from that time explaining the dating for Christmas use any of the above theories.

CHRISTIAN EXPLANATION #1 – Instead, one explanation (which seems odd to us modern folks) is the ancient idea that great men were born and died on the same date. Thus, since Jesus was crucified in late March, he may have been born around that time too. But if we start calculating at conception, the correct beginning of a life, that would put Jesus’ birth in late December.

CHRISTIAN EXPLANATION #2 – Another explanation was based on another ancient idea that the first day God created the earth was springtime, and since Jesus’ birth was comparable to the creation of the universe, the angel must have appeared to Mary to tell her she was pregnant through the Holy Spirit on March 25. Then, nine months later, Jesus was born in December.

CHRISTIAN EXPLANATION #3 – Some calculations for Jesus’ birth resulting in the December 25th date start with the account in the Gospel of Luke, Chapter 1, of John the Baptist’s miraculous conception. His conception took place when John’s father, Zechariah, was serving in the Temple at their tribe’s appointed time. By examining the tribal duty roster found in the Old Testament, it was concluded John was born on June 25th. Luke records Mary, Jesus’ mother, visited John’s mother, Elizabeth, in the 6th month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy. So, December 25th fits once again.

At the same time, other Christian churches adopted January 6th to mark Christmas or “Epiphany,” including Constantinople, Jerusalem, and Antioch. This date may have been chosen because they used a different dating system and/or calculated the date of Easter differently than the West. Eventually, some of these churches adopted the December date as well, but some Eastern churches still adhere to January 6th today.

In 529 AD, Emperor Justinian made December 25th a national holiday. As centuries past, December 25 to January 6 became the Twelve Days of Christmas and the Advent season also developed.

Bowler observes astutely, “For whatever reason the Roman church chose December 25 as the date on which to celebrate the Nativity, it was a momentous decisions that would cause centuries of controversy and conflict.”

GROWTH INTO A SPECTACLE

Bowler writes, “From the 300s on, the observance surrounding the celebration of the Nativity became more laden with rituals, art, and music, until it grew into the second holiest day on the Christian calendar.”

Just as the debate about December 25th continues until this day, the debate about how to celebrate the birth of Christ (as well as the role of pagan traditions in celebrating) stretch from ancient times until now.

For whatever reason December 25th was chosen, it has proven to be troublesome.

For one, preventing a co-mingling of the traditions proved difficult with Christmas being celebrated around the same time as the pagan midwinter celebrations, especially if you consider that after Emperor Constantine, Christianity went from a small group of devout followers to a very large group with many nominal followers.

Arguments were made that Christians should not celebrate the birth of their Lord and Savior as the pagans celebrate. This didn’t just mean not adopting pagan folk traditions, like decorating homes with greenery; this meant not doing things to excess – excessive eating, excessive gift-giving (or excessive expectations of gifts), excessive drinking. Times haven’t changed all that much. Some argued Christians should mark this holy day not by greed but by fasting and charity.

Eventually, many church leaders recognized they couldn’t stop the masses from practicing the customs they loved so. Thus, instead of banning them, they Christianized them. Certain pagan and folk traditions, as long as they didn’t conflict with Scripture, were claimed for Christ. They were re-branded and given new meaning connected to the Christian message.

But, as you’re well aware, the debate never ended.

Where much of the Christian/pagan debate about Christmas today has to do with grumpy atheists and non-Christians using the pagan argument to discredit Christmas, most of the arguing back then was Christians against Christians, pretty much making the same exact arguments. Likewise, some Christians in the early church protested against the materialism surrounding Christmas, imploring people to essentially “Keep Christ in Christmas.”

Jump to much later in history: by 1500 AD, Christmas celebrations were “solidly entrenched in western European cultures” with much variety and many of the familiar traditions and attitudes we associate with Christmas today, as well as many of the same troublesome excesses.

Yet, over time, Christmas became so marked by drunken chaos that Christmas in some places was all-out banned.

For a period, Christmas became much like St. Patrick’s Day in the U.S. today; the celebration had nothing to do with the holy person it was honoring; it was simply an excuse to act like drunken idiots. This banning of Christmas happened primarily after the Protestant Reformation (1517 AD) when there was no separation of church and state, such as by the Puritans and other Calvinists. No surprise there. The Enlightenment didn’t help either.

Christmas became thought of as a time of debauchery celebrated only by the lower classes. Any notion of holiness or religion vanished for the most part. No one was keeping the “Christ” in Christmas.

But Christmas would survive near-extinction and become the most celebrated holiday of all time that we know today.

Not surprising, this re-branding started in the United States. In the 1800s, a group of New York poets, illustrators, and writers helped make Christmas into what Americans know it as today: a domestic, child-friendly holiday.

One of these writers was Washington Irving, who introduced his readers to Saint Nicholas. In 1821, William Gilley published The Children’s Friend, the first to print a picture of our modern idea of Santa Claus. In 1822, Clement Clarke Moore wrote those famous words, “‘Twas the night before Christmas, when all thro’ the house…”

Around this same time in England, old carols were being rediscovered and new ones were being written. Charles Dickens published A Christmas Carol (one of my all-time favorite stories) in 1843, which “helped turn Victorian Christmas into a crusade against selfishness and greed” and “reunited the English Christmas with Christianity.” Christmas cards were invented in London in that same year. The royal family had a big influence too. Prince Albert, who had a German background, and Queen Victoria modeled Christmas as a family-oriented celebration with Christmas trees and roasted turkey.

Eventually, Christmas wiggled itself back into those stuffy Protestant churches because the common folk wanted it: “Christmas returned to Protestant church life because the rank and file of membership wanted it. It made its way against official opposition in many denominations until there was so many local groups celebrating December twenty-fifth as the birthday of Jesus that opposition was futile and indifference impossible.”

All this conflict has been over the birthday of the Prince of Peace. If nothing else, that should cause us pause. And we didn’t even touch on Santa yet.

NEXT: The History of Santa: Christian Saint or Pagan Satan?

IMG_0734

Who Jesus Ain’t: Learn more HERE.