Is Luke 23: 56 Absolute Proof For Christians To Keep The Sabbath?

Greetings again, this is Child Survivor.   When I entered the Worldwide Church of God in December 1971, I was only 8 years old.   My parents' Catholic faith had been a very important part of family life up to that point.   We went to mass every weekend either on Sunday morning or Saturday evening.  We had weekly prayers around the family altar.   We said grace before every meal.  And my parents were actually involved with parish life.  Mom sang in the choir and participated in the Catholic Women's Club, and Dad attended the Knights of Columbus.  Both parents taught the religious education back then as well.   So, it was quite a huge change going into the WCG where absolute obedience was required with a long list of laws and do's and don'ts you had to follow.   But the big sacred cow in the WCG was keeping the sabbath.
A long list of activities were banned from Friday sunset to Saturday sunset, including watching television, going shopping, going to the movies or any other recreational activities, or going to see any friends that weren't part of "God's true church".  On Fridays at sunset, the TV went off. We had our dinner and sat around quietly. On Saturday mornings, we drove to the 2 hour service, hung around there for at least an hour afterward, then had different people over every week for a big, holiday-style dinner.  Strangely enough, sabbath laws seemed to change like the wind during my six years in there, but I won't get too much into that.   What I want to zero in on is a claim regarding Jesus' followers keeping the sabbath after the crucifixion.  Sabbatarians like the WCG and it's splinter groups will claim that there is a verse that proves the disciples of Jesus kept the sabbath after He went to the cross.   It's found in Luke chapter 23, vs 56.  It reads as follows, and for context sake, yes context, we will start in vs 53: 

(Luke 23:53-56)   53 And he took it down and wrapped it in a linen cloth, and laid Him in a tomb cut into the rock, where no one had ever lain. 54 It was a preparation day, and a Sabbath was about to begin. 55 Now the women who had come with Him from Galilee followed, and they saw the tomb and how His body was laid. 56 And then they returned and prepared spices and perfumes. And on the Sabbath they rested according to the commandment.  (NASB)

Now, there is little doubt that the disciples did indeed rest on that Sabbath, the day after Jesus was crucified. (Amazing by the way that this clearly points to the weekly sabbath, and not an annual sabbath. So much for 72 hours in the tomb).  But three things I wish to examine here:
First, what was the mental state of the disciples when our Lord was crucified.
Second, did they even expect Him to rise from the dead?
And finally, why did the disciples keep the sabbath in that verse?

Let's look into this.

THE MENTAL STATE OF THE DISCIPLES:

Any of you who are Sabbatarians or in an Armstrong splinter group have likely read the gospels and the crucifixion and resurrection accounts.  And to those still practicing Armstrongism, I would plea with you to carefully and prayerfully go back and read the passion narratives again and ask the Lord for wisdom.  And when you do this, I trust you will notice that there is more to the passion story than just "three days and three nights".   But one thing you should notice that the disciples were pretty much emotional wrecks when they saw the promised Messiah arrested, beaten, crucified, and buried.   Their mental state was not good.   

DENIAL/LYING: First, we have Peter's mental state.  I don't think I need to remind anyone how Peter denied knowing our Lord not once, not twice, but three times.  He was what many of us would call "cowardly" here.   Peter, one of the inner 3 of the Apostles flat out lied about even knowing Jesus.

VIOLENCE:  But secondly Peter also took to violence to defend the Lord  "Then Simon Peter, since he had a sword, drew it and struck the high priest’s slave, and cut off his right ear; and the slave’s name was Malchus” (John 18:10) Jesus actually did an intervention here and rebuked Peter’s actions. “But Jesus responded and said, “enough of this” and He touched his ear and healed him” (Luke 22:51)

DISBELIEF: We also have the disciples in a state of disbelief!   And seeing that Jesus had discussed his death and resurrection numerous times, were the disciples expecting it?  Hardly.  

(Matthew 16 : 21-22) " From that time Jesus began to point out to His disciples that it was necessary for Him to go to Jerusalem and to suffer many things from the elders, chief priests, and scribes, and to be killed, and to be raised up on the third day. 22 And yet Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, “God forbid it, Lord! This shall never happen to You!”

The gospel accounts make it clear the Apostles did not believe what Jesus told the disciples about His death and resurrection.

ABANDONMENT: Another thing they had just committed was abandonment. They left Jesus to fend for himself when He was being arrested and taken away. (Matthew 26:56) ^"But all this has taken place so that the Scriptures of the prophets will be fulfilled.” Then all the disciples left Him and fled."  They left, they fled, they even denied the Lord they had spent over 3 years with! They abandoned not only their own Messiah, but a very close friend.

COWARDICE: I hesitate to use this term, but the actions of the disciples clearly didn’t display bravery. “Now when it was evening on that day, the first day of the week, and when the doors were shut where the disciples were together due to fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst, and *said to them, “Peace be to you.”   (John 20:19) Why were they in fear?   They thought the Jews would be coming after them next.   So we know they were not particularly full of great faith at that moment.  So the Apostles were clearly displaying denial, lying, cowardice, disbelief, and abandonment.

Now, please understand, this is not meant as an attack on the Apostles.  I'm simply saying they were human and made some very bad calls here...as all of us would have done had we been in their shoes.   Thankfully our Lord is full of mercy, and He knew it was going to happen. But when we consider what they did after the crucifixion, we need to understand where they were at emotionally. This was not exactly their shining moment, so anything they did, including keeping the sabbath, should not be taken as marching orders for the rest of us.

DID THEY BELIEVE JESUS ROSE AFTER IT HAPPENED?

Another factor to consider is whether or not the disciples even expected Jesus to rise again. The modern day sabbathkeeper will ask us what that even has to do with the question of the sabbath. Yet, when I ask them this question, I receive no answer. And it’s very clear that they don’t take this into consideration when they use Luke 23:56 as absolute proof that the cross didn’t eliminate the sabbath command. Nobody is denying that the disciples rested on the sabbath the day after the crucifixion. But during this “rest” were they anticipating our Lord’s resurrection? The gospel writers do indeed address this. First of all, even when the disciples saw the empty tomb, they still didn’t get what happened. See what Mary says to the angel who spoke to her:

(John 20: 11-13)^"11 But Mary was standing outside the tomb, weeping; so as she wept, she stooped to look into the tomb; 12 and she *saw two angels in white sitting, one at the head and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus had been lying. 13 And they *said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping?” She *said to them, “Because they have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they put Him.”

Okay, the tomb was guarded by killing machines otherwise known as Roman guards, tomb burst open after it had been sealed, our Lord's burial garments still rolled up neatly, and what does Mary ask the angel?  "Who took him?".   It doesn't stop there.   The Apostles didn't believe it when the women told them.. 

(Luke 24:5-11)" 5 and as the women were terrified and bowed their faces to the ground, the men said to them, “Why are you seeking the living One among the dead? 6 He is not here, but He has risen. Remember how He spoke to you while He was still in Galilee, 7 saying that the Son of Man must be handed over to sinful men, and be crucified, and on the third day rise from the dead.” 8 And they remembered His words, 9 and returned from the tomb and reported all these things to the eleven, and to all the rest. 9 and returned from the tomb and reported all these things to the eleven, and to all the rest. 10 Now these women were Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Mary the mother of James; also the other women with them were telling these things to the Apostles. 11 But these words appeared to them as nonsense, and they would not believe the women."

The women didn't believe Jesus had risen, the disciples didn't believe He would rise.  I won't even go into the followers on the road to Emmaus or "doubting Thomas", but I think you get the point by now. 


SO WHY DID THEY REST ON THAT PARTICULAR SABBATH?

While the passage doesn't give a reason that the disciples rested, I think we have enough evidence to come to a conclusion.   They kept the sabbath because they thought it was all over.   These disciples had spent 3 and 1/2 years with our Lord listening to Him, getting their marching orders from Him, enduring tough situations with Him, witnessing miracle after miracle from Him, and being close friends with Him.  And yet now in their minds, He's dead and gone.  Because they didn't fully grasp His assurance of rising on the third day. 

So when all their hope for what Jesus promised was gone in their minds, what did they do? They went back to keeping the Sabbath.  It's funny how context can change everything.  Hope is gone, assurance is gone, promises are gone, all is lost...hey everyone, we better keep the sabbath.  The context really makes it clear that this verse is not a glowing endorsement of sabbath keeping.  

In fact, the New Testament never comes close to saying anywhere else that the disciples, or Jesus for that matter, actually kept or rested on the sabbath except in this passage.  Most other sabbath passages like Luke 4 and Acts 13 the stories don't end so nice.  Oh sure, the Sabbatarians love to quote Luke 4:16 where Luke tell us Jesus' CUSTOM (not commandment) to go to the synagogue and read to those assembled. And in Acts 13 and other passages in Acts we read that Paul and Barnabas went and preached in the synagogue and the whole city turned out the following sabbath.   But what Sabbatarians conveniently omit is that in Luke 4, the sabbath keeping Jews tried to throw Jesus off a cliff when He declared Himself Messiah or the fact that the sabbath keeping Jews started a riot to have Paul and Barnabas driven out of the region.   Are these the folks (the sabbath keepers) whose examples we want to follow?  I've asked many sabbath keepers this very question, and I seldom get an answer.  And if I do, it's usually "well, the Jews back then weren't doing it right".   Hmmmm.  They have a point there.   Nowhere in the Old Testament, where the sabbath is instructed to Israel, did God ever instruct constructing synagogues and attending them on the sabbath.  This was an addition to Jewish life between the two Testaments. 

Okay, I'm going to wrap it up here because I don't want to get too deep into the whole sabbath debate.  I just wanted to point out the state of the disciples when they decided to "rest on the sabbath" the day after the crucifixion.   I will say after that, all references to the sabbath in Acts are in Jewish settings.   We have no mention of the church keeping the sabbath and no mention of Paul doing anything more than trying to convert the Jews on their day of assembly.  It says nothing about Paul resting on the sabbath or even worshiping on the sabbath.  We also have no instructions to keep the sabbath in the entire New Testament.   Please don't get me wrong.  I'm not opposed to having a day of the week for resting.   I also never said that it is wrong to assemble for worship on Saturday.  I know a lot of Catholics that attend Saturday vigil mass.   But I am saying, how and when we rest is something God allows us to decide for ourselves in the New Covenant.   In our present dispensation of grace, or the “church age”, God cares about the heart, not the calendar.  The early Christians began assembling on the first day of the week in the book of Acts.  It was not the Catholic church that changed it, even if certain Catholic scholars say they did.   Days are not important in the New Covenant.  What is important is believing in the One Who was sent to save us from our sins.   But taking a passage as proof of obedience at a time when the disciples were in fear, shock, and disbelief is not exactly compelling evidence when you think closely about it. 

" Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.”   John 6:29

Peace and Blessings to all!

************

It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )

Acts 17:11

************

Did Herbert Armstrong Follow New Testament Practices For Church Buildings?

Hey readers, this is "Child Survivor".   I have left a good number of comments here on As Bereans Did over the years.   xHWA is actually a very close friend of mine, though we have never met in person, but I do look forward to doing so in heaven someday.  I have found As Bereans Did to be a very helpful tool in helping people understand the origins and unbiblical nature of Herbert Armstrong's teachings.

My story with the cult goes like this, when I was approaching my 8th birthday, I knew something was up with my parents and my older brother.   Men in suits began coming to the house to discuss religious topics with my parents.  I didn't completely understand what was happening until it was announced shortly before my birthday that we would be switching churches soon, but we couldn't do it just yet until the leaders allowed us to start attending.  (That alone is a topic for another day.)  My parents and my older siblings started talking about this new church we would be going to, but it wasn't just ANY church, it was the TRUE church and all other churches were of the devil, especially the Catholic church, which we had been very faithful to ever since I could remember.  Now, in my earliest of years, I was always fascinated with the Catholic parish we belonged to.  The building was a modern building for back then, but built beautifully.  It had beautiful stained glass windows, lots of beautiful marble, these chandeliers that had crosses all over them, and a life sized crucifix, which I would always feel drawn to during the mass.  As a young child, I didn't pay a lot of attention to what was going on during the mass, but I did always stare at the beauty of the building and mystery that encompassed the architecture and statues.    I would say for that reason alone, I didn't mind going to church that much.  I even made it to my first holy communion at age 7, but sadly it was for naught because we joined the WCG the following December...yup, you heard right...DECEMBER.   That was the first year of no Christmas in our house.

Anyway, why am I bringing up the Catholic church building that I went to up to age 8?  Simple. One of the things that I was told about this new and true church is that it properly taught that the church is not a building, the church is actually the people.  Which is actually correct where scripture is concerned, but I might add, just about all churches do acknowledge the people as the church. Armstrong did not get this as a revelation and unique to his religion.    I was also informed because of that the early Christians met in each others homes, so they had no buildings of their own. That is also correct, we'll touch on that further down.   That is why the church would meet in rented spaces, like the congregation we were going to met in a movie theater to follow the "biblical pattern" of not owning property.   BUZZZZZZZ!   Now I don't think this topic requires a lot of in depth analysis, so I want to focus on 2 questions here.  Did the Worldwide Church of God and the modern splinter groups follow the "biblical pattern" as far as meeting places was concerned? AND were they even consistent in practicing what they preached?   Let's look into it.

WAS THE WCG BEING "BIBLICAL"?

First of all, the Worldwide Church of God made it very clear in their practice that congregations would be ruled by headquarters and would meet in rented facilities.   Now there is nothing wrong with a church meeting in a rented space.   When a new church starts, that's usually the route it has to take, especially today with the price of real estate.  Often new Evangelical or Pentecostal churches begin as home Bible studies, then they move into a rented space like a hall, school, or a section of another church's building.     The church I currently belong to started in 2008 and met in a VFW hall up to 2015.  When the Lutheran congregation in our town folded, our church was able to purchase the Lutheran church building.  And I'm happy to report that there's a lot of stained glass in the sanctuary that our church has kept up.   Purchasing buildings from previously defunct congregations is a common trend for Evangelical churches these days.   Now, when I began at age 8 at the WCG, they rented a movie theater on Saturday mornings.  This was an old style, single-screen theater.  While I found the seats more comfortable than the wooden pews in the Catholic church, that was where my comfort ended.   Later on, the congregation was split to accommodate church members who lived closer to or in Rhode Island, and the Providence congregation was in another movie theater after a few short months meeting at the Providence Civic Center.   The last building we met in was an old Grange Hall that the church was actually able to fix up and lease on a monthly basis.   That one actually felt more like a church in my opinion, even though there were those awful metal chairs.  Now I bring up my history with the WCG to simply ask, is this what the early church practiced?  Let's see what scripture has to say:

First, the earliest meetings of the church were held in various locations.  When the Holy Spirit came at Pentecost in Acts 1 and 2, the disciples were gathered in the "upper room".  From Acts 1:

(ACT. 1: 13-14) 13 When they had entered the city, they went up to the upstairs room where they were staying, that is, Peter, John, James, and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, Simon the Zealot, and Judas the son of James. 14 All these were continually devoting themselves with one mind to prayer, along with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers.

After the Holy Spirit descended and miracles were performed, we are told the disciples continued the practice of meeting in the temple, but they also began meeting in each others' homes.  "Day by day continuing with one mind in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they were taking their meals together with gladness and sincerity of heart," (ACT 2:46).   Meetings in the earliest gatherings of the church included the breaking of bread, which is a metaphor the New Testament writers used for the Lord's Supper, that we also call "communion".  But they also had meals together.  Does this sound like a pattern the WCG followed?  You decide.   

Not too long after the initial birth of the church, homes of believers became the meeting places.
(ACT. 12:12) “When he [Peter] realized this, he went to the house of Mary, the mother of John who is called Mark, where there were many people gathered in prayer.”
(ACT 16:40) “When they [Paul and Silas] had come out of the prison, they went to Lydia’s house where they saw and encouraged the brothers, and then they left.”
(ROM. 16:3-5) “Greet Prisca and Aquila, my coworkers in Christ Jesus, who risked their necks for my life, to whom not only I give thanks but also all the churches of the gentiles.  Greet also the church in their house. Greet my beloved Epaenetus, who was the first convert in Asia for Christ.”
(PHI. 1-2) “Paul, a prisoner for Christ Jesus, and Timothy our brother, to Philemon, our beloved and our co-worker, to Apphia our sister, to Archippus our fellow soldier, and to the church at your house”.

I could go on, but I believe I've made my point here.  Please keep in mind, the early Christians were outlaws.   The exemptions the Jews received for worship of the Roman emperor was not extended to the Christians.  The Christians were outlaws for much of the first three centuries. So, meeting in secret in homes and even in the catacombs of Rome was necessary for their continued existence.  This does not mean that churches could not own property for meeting, but it's very clear the New Testament church did not own any.    The strange point about the WCG teaching is that because the church didn't have church buildings that they owned, then any other means they used was deemed "biblical".   It's the old case of what I'm NOT doing instead of what I AM doing here.   Renting a high school auditorium, a Grange hall, a movie theater, or a Masonic temple does not constitute meeting in each others' homes and is no more "biblical" than erecting a church building.

WAS THE WCG CONSISTENT?

I can say with full conviction that the WCG was NOT consistent in this practice.   While most congregations met in rented spaces, the church on a denominational level owned numerous properties.   When I entered the WCG at age 8 in the early 1970's, I learned the the church owned at least 3 colleges...Ambassador College in Pasadena (which my two older siblings attended but never graduated from) , Big Sandy, Texas and Bricketwood, England.   Also, the church, at that time, owned at least some of the sites where the annual Feast of Tabernacles was held.   I remember the second year we attended the Feast at Mount Pocono, PA, we stayed over a few extra days because the last great day was a Thursday, so Dad kept us there until Sunday.  So we attended the local congregation there at Mt. Pocono the following sabbath and they met in the administration building outside the Tabernacle.  This was church owned property.  The congregations near the colleges met at the colleges, so the properties served for educational and church meeting purposes.  The church owned these properties as well.  So it doesn't really take all that much intellect to see that the WCG did a lot of cherry picking not only with the Old Testament law that they claimed was still in effect, but they did so with their own laws such as this as well.   

Another way that today's splinter groups are inconsistent is that some of them will meet on Saturdays in other church buildings.   The closest United Church of God congregation meets on Saturdays in a Congregational church, or at least they did last I checked.  And yet, the WCG teachings that they are trying to keep going, used to call all other churches "synagogues of Satan".   Seriously?  You're going to use a synagogue of Satan as your meeting place of for "God's one true church"???    

WHAT WERE THEIR MOTIVES?

So why exactly was it okay for God's true church to own property on the denominational level, but not on the congregational level?   Here I can only speculate, but I know enough about Armstrongism to make a very educated guess.  But one thing I knew about them is that everything with Herbert was about control.   Everything, and I mean everything in that cult was controlled by Herbert and all his decrees and rulings were passed onto the congregations.   Pastors' salaries, housing, rent for church meetings, offerings, etc were all done directly to and through headquarters..i.e. Herbert's staff.   Local congregations had almost NO say in what happened in their own congregations, everything was governed by Herbert himself.   If congregations were to have their own buildings, that would have been a lot of lost control by Herbert.   Buildings take a lot of work to maintain and pay for.    They take a lot of man power and endless committees and meetings to buy or build the structure and maintain it.   This would have taken a lot of power over the congregations away from Herbert.  You couldn't have that now, could you?
 

************

It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )

Acts 17:11

************

Help Wanted

Are you a former Armstrongist who has transitioned into a mainstream Christian tradition, and do you have the urge to tell your story, or do you need to get some things off your chest, or do you feel called by God to reach out to those still in the system? Then As Bereans Did might be the place for you to do just that.

The authors at ABD are getting to the point where we just don't have the time to write here anymore like we used to. We would love to see it keep going. If anyone out there is interested in taking up this task, contact me, xHWA, at escapingarmstrong@gmail.com. Or, just leave a comment here. If you're a good fit, it doesn't take long to get you set up. Pay is terrible (there is none). But the lasting rewards can be worth it.

Give it a think, eh?

Break Your Addiction To End-Times

Several times over several years, As Bereans Did has demonstrated Armstrongism is a branch of the Seventh Day Adventist movement. Even though Armstrongism decries Adventism as a false church, it is undeniably a demonstrable fact of history that Armstrongism is a branch of Adventism, and the core doctrines within Armstrongism originate with Ellen G White. Among those core doctrines I refer to are the seventh day Sabbath and pre-millennialism - and by pre-millennialism I mean the doomsday prophecy. That is where I want to focus today.
But first, I want to point something out.

If you look at the history of the Adventist movement, which came first, the doomsday prophecy or the Sabbath? Answer: the doomsday prophecy.
William Miller, founder of the Adventist movement (aka. Millerites), was entirely a Protestant doomsday prophet. That is the reason for the name Adventist after all - they proclaimed (and still proclaim) the imminent Second Advent of Christ. Doomsday prophecy is right there in the name. Miller was at least honorable enough to give it up in late 1843 when his prophecies failed for the second time. He left his own movement but the movement continues on, still heaping failure upon failure in their doomsday prophecies to this very minute.
Ellen G White, the new de facto head of the movement, invented some ridiculous excuse regarding the failed prophecies and then continued on as if it was all going swimmingly. It wasn't about law at this time. The Whites were introduced to the Sabbath doctrine in late 1844. (For more on the history, read our article "COG Worldwide Association Claims False Roots (long version)".) So, the Sabbath doctrin which inspired the Seventh Day part of the name did not come until some years after the doomsday prophecy which inspired the Adventist part.
The COG7 split from the Adventists in the mid-1800s. Herbert Armstrong was hired as a COG7 minister. He was still technically a COG7 Minister when he started The Plain Truth magazine. What was he printing in 1934? Doomsday prophecies. He predicted the return of Christ in 1936. When that failed, he simply changed his formula and continued on as if it was all going swimmingly. (For more on this, see our article "All Systems Are Go".) This is how it went until the day he died.

Why take you through that? To demonstrate that first and foremost the Adventist/Armstrongist movement is about doomsday prophecy. Before there was a Sabbath doctrine, before there ever was a debate over holy days, before a single word was mentioned about meats or tithes, there was doomsday prophecy. One can make a solid case that is still the core message of the current Armstrongist splinter groups. I defy you to find a single big name in the entire movement today that doesn't go about predicting the time of Jesus' return. The movement is not about first and foremost about law, it's about doom. Or, in other words, fear.

But why does doomsday prophecy have such a hold on people? What is it about us that makes us attracted to it in the first place, and what holds us enthralled for decades after? What causes so many to dump their life savings and life's dreams into the bottomless pit of the doomsday prophet's pockets? The answer is complicated and nuanced. It's slightly different for everyone. But slightly different is still mostly the same. I believe it boils down to fear.

People look around at this world at the ponderous mess we humans have created in what would otherwise have been a beautiful world, and we are inherently disappointed. We know it could be better - SHOULD be better. We are afraid of disease. We are afraid of persecution. We are afraid of enemies foreign and domestic. We are afraid of natural disaster. We are afraid of ruin. We are afraid of the past, present, and the future. Fear, fear, fear, fear. So, we long for a better future, a happier future - the better, happier future promised in the Bible. 

I think doomsday prophecy is first and foremost an escape. A tragic escape, based on what many call "fear porn". It's a coping mechanism with a heaping spoonful of schadenfreude.
I think doomsday prophecy is also a means to get some justice in a world practically devoid of it. When bad things happen, we can say it was deserved. Finally, they got theirs. And someday, someday very soon, the people who hurt me are going to get theirs, too.
I also think doomsday prophecy is a means to get some hope. We can cope with many evils so long as we have an inkling of hope. I just have to endure for 3 or 4 more years.

I could go on and on analyzing it, but that's not what I'm on about today. I don't want to talk about the problem. I want to talk about what to do about it. I just didn't think it best to talk about a solution without talking a little about the problem.
There is one more part of the problem I want to mention because I think it's key to the solution.

We look at all this disappointment ...and we blame it all on anyone but ourselves.

You see, a critical part of the problem is we took ourselves out of the equation for both the cause and the solution. We tend to see ourselves only as victims of something we didn't cause and can't fix. The cause is that other people are godless, and doomsday prophecy becomes the solution. But that misses the mark.

Doomsday prophecy is like a drug. How do you break yourself from its grip? Recognize how you participated in the nastiness of this world in your own way, and because you did in fact help to cause this mess you can therefore take steps to change yourself and your own little sphere of this fallen world.
In a phrase: confess and repent.

"But xHWA, I did confess and I have repented. I am keeping the law as best as I can!" No, that's not what I mean. I am not talking about confessing sin and repenting to law-keeping. I am talking about confessing that you played a part in this fallen world. You have not always been the person you could have been - you SHOULD have been - to those people you've met along the way. In one way or the other, you helped this world to be the misery it is. Confess that. And I am saying that there is still time to try, in whatever small way you can, to make your own little corner of this world a brighter place. That is what I mean by repent.

You know the Lord's Prayer (aka. the Our Father)? It says, "Your kingdom come. Your will be done. On earth as it is in Heaven." (MAT. 6: 10). Let God come to your heart now. Let His patient, merciful, loving will be done through you now. Let His kingdom reign in your heart this very day. Be a light in an otherwise dark world (MAT. 5: 14-16).
In the mind of a person addicted to doomsday prophecy, this prayer points to some future time. To a person who rejects doomsday prophecy, it refers to now and a future time. It referred to now when Jesus said it almost 2,000 years ago. It refers to now today. It is always now and in the future coming Kingdom. I talked about this in my article "Once And Future Kingdom - part II".

You break the yoke of doomsday prophecy and end-times by taking up your cross each day and following the promptings of the Holy Spirit each and every day from now on (MAT. 16: 24).

"But xHWA, I do follow Christ. I keep the Sabbath and tithe and help out around church." At no point did Jesus ever say, "Take up your cross and sit on your hands every seventh day." He didn't say, "Follow Me only on Saturdays." He didn't say, "Wait around until I return and then follow Me into charity." He didn't say, "Tithe and you're pretty much done following Me." He didn't say, "Follow Me but only with people at your local church."
Look at how Mark records Jesus' command to the Rich Young Ruler:

(MAR. 10: 21) Then Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, “One thing you lack: Go your way, sell whatever you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, take up the cross, and follow Me.

The man literally got done telling Jesus that he kept the Sabbath. That was great and all, because they were yet in the Old Covenant, but Jesus said to take it farther. That is where the man walked away. And that is where we all tend to walk away. When the onus falls on us to take responsibility for our own actions and our own calling to make this world a better place, we fall back on our efforts at law-keeping and we walk away, sad. Precisely as the Rich Young Ruler did.

Herbert Armstrong used to teach that making this world a better place is literally the same as fighting against God. Don't vote. Don't serve. Don't give to charity. Don't pray for. He said God is trying hard to punish this world, and by doing what Jesus clearly taught us to do in multiple places - working to make this a better world - we are fighting against God.
That's not what I read in my Bible.

Don't think I am pointing my comments at Armstrongists only. This blog is about Armstrongism, so naturally that is what I write about. In the interest of fairness, please allow me to hammer Christianity in general for this same thing.
In my own life, if I had to make a list of the top ten people who have done the most awful things to me, most of those would be Catholics. Almost all of them would be Christians. Maybe even all of them. (I don't actually have such a list, so I am just guessing.) So, yeah, in 2,000 years of Christianity we still have a miserable world. We Christians have collectively done a miserable job, for the most part. And guess what --- that includes me! Mea culpa!

But I'm off topic.

When you isolate yourself and dwell on your own fears and problems, the world becomes a prison. End-times becomes your salvation. But when you try to help others in their problems, you tend to forget about your own and the world becomes a better place. When you try to make yourself smile, it's difficult. When you try to make someone else smile, you smile, too. The Kingdom comes, little by little, as His good and loving will is done on this earth as it is in Heaven.

Sadly, we know we aren't going to fix it all. We know Jesus must return. We know there are things actively working against us. It's not like Christians behaving badly is the sole cause of this world's misery (though it certainly is a big part of it) therefore Christians behaving properly will not be the whole solution. You're not going to save the world. But, then again, I am not suggesting you should. I am suggesting you change yourself and your immediate sphere of influence. Don't let not being able to change the world stop you from taking responsibility for your own actions and reactions! Repent and change anyway. Make your personal area of influence a thing that praises the Lord. Withhold that sharp comment. Lend a hand. Do good things so people can see and praise God. If you were given a job to do, then do it. Do what you can do. Today.

How do you break your addiction to end-times? Change yourself. Live your life as if the Kingdom has already come. Become part of the solution. Make someone's life better today as you are able. One man died and the whole world changed. Who knows what great things can be done through you if you are willing.

************

It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )

Acts 17:11

************

Christmas Eras Tour - Part IV

Welcome back yet again! We are going on a tour of the seven eras of the history of Christmas. This is the final installment in the series.

As a reminder -
I have been reading "Stations of the Sun" by Ronald Hutton. One thing I noticed while reading is that Christmas went through stages. I see at least 7 eras in the past 2,000 years. Each one is marked by its own characteristics which were either greatly changed or outright abandoned in the following era. I thought it might be worthwhile to take us on a tour of those eras. Since this post pulls mainly from Hutton, and Hutton focuses mainly on England where Christmas is concerned, this post will, too.

In the previous post in this series, we reviewed eras 4 (Oppression) and 5 (Restoration). In those years, from 1517 to 1760, Christmas nearly died in the British Isles from religious opposition by the Puritans. Today, we will tour eras 6 (Industrial Revolution) and 7 (Modern).

In the first article in this series, I said, "I am particularly interested in showing how our modern Christmas is mostly a product of the three eras before it (ie. 7 is caused by 4, 5, & 6)." We saw Christmas gutted in 4 and salvaged in 5. We are about to see it completely reinvented in 6. Almost every tradition from era 3 that did not die out before now dies by the end of era 6 and is replaced by what we know today.

If you can find time in your busy schedule to read this, I hope you enjoy it! If your boss thinks you're staying busy as you read it, all the better.

INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION (1760 to 1915 AD)

The Industrial Revolution era is the time starting with the First Industrial Revolution, to the end of the Second Industrial Revolution. These dates are according to Britannica. It is an era most people don't hear about past grade school. During this era, we see a near abandonment of Christmas in some areas (again), its salvation (again), Christmas becomes more child-focused, and it shifts hard towards secularism. In this era, Christmas rapidly becomes what we know today.

When we left Christmas, it was in the step-down recovery room in an English hospital after flatlining on the table with the Puritans. When the Commonwealth was erased, all was looking to be on the mend. Then came the industrialists. As they say, "Out of the frying pan and into the fire."

In "Stations of the Sun" chapter 10, Ronald Hutton begins by explaining how boorish Christmas had become to the upper classes. He goes on to tell how the government and industrialists together stamped out the 12 days of Christmas by making them mandatory workdays.

If you recall, in Dickens' novel "A Christmas Carol", Bob Cratchit expected only one day off and was in turn expected to be back to work early the next morning. This reflected the standard work schedule. Industrialists tried to take Christmas, too, but the people wouldn't have it. Merchants were blamed.

This is certainly not how it was everywhere, because not everywhere was industrialized. Traditions survived in those pockets. Dickens gives us a hint of this, too, when Martha Cratchit states she intends to sleep in the next day. Keeping the old traditions alive is what Washington Irving's book "An Old Christmas" was about. He visits an English great house out in the country where the old traditions are purposefully kept. But on the main industrialization was the new reality, and it was coming for everyone.

Traditions from the feast days of the Saints had been moving to Christmas Day already for many years, but here the pace increased exponentially. Traditions that did not migrate died off. Only a few exceptions luckily bucked that trend. Without twelve days to celebrate, who had time for all that? Celebrating is fun but who wants to make their one day off more tiring than a regular workday? By the end of the century, the twelve days would be gone. What you think of as Christmas today, with a single day filled with every tradition, is the result.

Hutton credits the second salvation of Christmas Day in England mainly to these four things:

• A general nostalgia for pre-industrial times. People were longing for a more traditional, more charitable, more meaningful time.
• The Oxford Movement. Anglicans regained an appreciation for a more traditional (Catholic and anti-Puritan), high-liturgy approach.
• Popular authors and entertainers, the greatest of which was Charles Dickens.
• Prince Albert of England. A German and a family man.

And as goes England, so goes America.

In this era, mistletoe finally takes on its romantic overtones. Yes, this late. No, it was not ancient heathen fecundity, but post-Puritan prudishness. Christmas was about love, and love turns to romance. Some randy Brit had the industrious idea to employ mistletoe berries to elicit a kiss from some bonnie lass. Darned if it didn't work, too. The first place mistletoe is found in a romantic context is in a song from a musical comedy called "Two to One", which was published in 1784. From that point on, it is found more and more often in a romantic context. And from this time it spread out to other nations. (See our article "Misinformed On Mistletoe" for more.)

In America, the Puritanism of its early years was thawing slowly. The first Christmas party in the Whitehouse was in 1800. Consequently, that was the very year John Adams and his family moved into the Whitehouse as its first occupants. On November 1, 1800, John Adams moves in. Just under two months later, they have a Christmas party. How ironic Adams was from New England and a Puritan background. So, most early Americans shunned Christmas but not all.

At some undetermined point in the early 1800s, German gingerbread bakers - who had a special guild of their own which were the only ones allowed to bake gingerbread outside of the holidays and who would make the most elaborate objects of gingerbread - began making gingerbread houses, apparently inspired by the Grimm Brother's "Hansel and Gretel" (1812).

We would be criminally remiss to omit the great literary works of this era. Washington Irving (of Headless Horseman fame) wrote "A History Of New York", mostly involving the Dutch. In it, Irving shares many a tale and description of Saint Nicholas (aka. Sinterklaas). Although Protestant, the Dutch loved St. Nicholas, as did most sailors. In this version, Sinterklaas lays his finger on his nose, rides in a flying wagon, and drops toys to children down chimneys. (For more, see this article "The Father of Santa Claus", which I chose for you since it clearly and accurately lists out all of Irving's quotes.) But Irving was not just a promoter of Santa, he was a lover of all things Christmas and promoted it gladly.

These descriptions from Irving were the inspiration for a poem attributed to Clement Moore - the infamous "A Visit From Saint Nicholas" (aka. Twas The Night Before Christmas) in 1822. Here, Santa first gets his sleigh and eight reindeer. He is also miniaturized to better fit into stove pipes, as stoves had begun to replace large fireplaces. This poem was clearly written for children.

Together, these two works both invented and saved the Santa Claus tradition. The very first point in all of history where we can say the modern Santa Claus begins to come together is right here with these two very Christian authors. And nothing in their version comes from ancient paganism.

I want to pause to point something out. Santa Claus, whose creation we have built towards since the first post in this series, is a very complicated thing. So complicated, many people have completely incompatible descriptions of how we got here. Every origin story which puts Odin in as the origin of Santa is pure conjecture. That Odin was swapped out for Saint Nicholas in the distant past is a modern reinterpretation of history based on similarities in character traits rather than direct mentions from historical documents. For example, Odin wears a hat and cloak, has a flying horse, and is wise. That is what these Odin origins are built on. Frankly, it makes no sense due to 1) correlation does not prove causation, 2) they conflate Santa and other traditions in order to build similarities, and 3) the multitude of Odin's other traits. Odin, the wandering, one-eyed God of Fury and Visions, spear-bearing warrior, and leader of the Wild Hunt, is not a gift-bringer in any medieval or older source, nor is he generous and kind, nor even particularly concerned with children. They used to sacrifice humans, including children, to him. If anything, he should be the receiver of gifts. In contrast, the attributes of Saint Nicholas, such as generosity, kindness, selflessness, care for people and especially children, etc etc, may be legend but they are legends we have record of, and they are present in many cultures where there was no Odin at all. Plus, Nicholas is a gift-giver and is closely associated with Christmas time.
Santa is in reality a merger of Christian traditions: the German Saint Nicholas tradition and this new Dutch-American Saint Nicholas being the main two. According to some, the only two.
Father Christmas - who does not descend from Saint Nicholas - is separate from Santa and barely involved. Father Christmas can appear similarly to Odin with his cap and cloak, but as we saw in the last post, the earliest appearances of Father Christmas were nothing like Odin.

Another, secular German character and gift-giver, the Weihnachtsmann (Christmas Man), also was created in this period, but after Santa. The earliest mention is in 1835 in the song "Der Weihnachtsmann" by Heinrich Hoffman (who also authored the German national anthem). Even this character is not based on old paganism as there is no real description of him at first. Any physical attributes appear later.

After this era, Santa absorbs other traditions into one grand gift-bringer, with many names and localized attributes.

There is also a lesser-known author we should note here. In 1816, Ernst Hoffman wrote "The Nutcracker and The Mouse King", which would later inspire Peter Tchaikovsky.

Wreaths were used at Advent time for centuries, but in 1839, Johann Hinrich Wichern created the first Advent Wreath. It had four large candles representing the four Sundays of Advent, and twenty small red candles representing the other days. Modern Advent Wreaths only have the four large, colored candles. Some add a fifth white candle for Christmas Day.

Ghost of Christmas Past

Now we come to it; perhaps the most important thing to happen to Christmas in the last 500 years. Charles Dickens authored "A Christmas Carol" in 1843, arguably the single most popular book on Christmas outside of the Bible itself. Dickens pulls inspiration from his own life, the culture of his day, the Bible, Irving, Shakespeare (Hamlet), Dante (Inferno), and some other quaint locations such as Punch magazine (based off the Punch and Judy puppet shows - think of it as a Mad magazine of the early 1800s). It took a few decades to catch on in America since Dickens insulted the American people after a visit. If any single thing could be said to have been the most important thing that saved Christmas from the Industrial Revolution, it would be this.
When you read "A Christmas Carol", note how Dickens has three personifications of Christmas. There is the Ghost of Christmas Past, who is holiness and light. Dickens is expressing a longing for that better Christmas of eras past. There is the Ghost of Christmas Present, who is none other than Father Christmas (NOT Santa), the personification of Christmas itself. Dickens uses this Father Christmas as every bit the pro-Christmas propaganda as John Thomas did (from era 4). And the Ghost of Christmas Future, who comes as death personified, the Grim Reaper. There is hope in this dark future, though ...if the greedy, miserly, anti-Christmas paths of the Industrial Revolution be turned from.

"`Men’s courses will foreshadow certain ends, to which, if persevered in, they must lead,’ said Scrooge. `But if the courses be departed from, the ends will change. Say it is thus with what you show me.' "

If you wish to learn more specifically about Dickens' Christmas classic, Hillsdale College has a free online course called "Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol". You can learn such things as Dickens himself lived in Camden Town and his parents went to Debtor's Prison. I've just started it myself. Pretty good so far. It might be worth some of your free time.

Together, these three men - Irving, Moore, and Dickens - saved Christmas.

Here, some smaller Christmas traditions appear.

On the Feast of St. Nicholas (December 6), children in various countries would leave their shoes and socks out at night and wake up to candy or small treats or coins inside. I mentioned this in the previous era, stating its origin is unknown but quite old and most likely Dutch. After the Reformation, most Saint Nicholas traditions were copy/pasted to Christmas. This led to the tradition of stockings hung from the chimney with care on Christmas Eve. Although the shoe tradition is said to be Dutch, Ronald Hutton says the stocking tradition is German (p. 116).

Another novelty from this era is the Christmas greeting card. Invented and sent in 1843 by Sir Henry Cole. It was traditional since Roman times to send letters to friends on New Year. Cole simply had the bright idea of having most of the letter printed out, with a lovely photo, to make the process easier. The earliest were not Christmas related, but New Year. They became Christmas related a few decades later.

Prince Albert's Christmas Tree

Another novelty from this era is the most recognizable tradition of Christmas - the Christmas Tree. Hey! Didn't we already talk about the tree? Yes! It started in the 1500s, but it didn't get popular until now. You could find Christmas Trees in many places around the world by this time, but mostly just in German immigrant homes. It did not become truly fashionable until Queen Victoria of England married Prince Albert of Germany. Ronald Hutton lists Albert as one of his saviors of Christmas. Albert brought the Christmas Tree tradition with him to England, setting one up in Windsor Castle in 1848. Paintings of the royal children standing in front of a perfectly magical tree, gripped with awe at the lights and bangles that hung from it and the toys beneath, while the loving Queen and Prince looked on with beaming pride, captured the world's heart. From there it caught on first with the wealthy, then the middle class, then by the 1950s, almost everyone had one.

Here I pause to mention Alexander Hislop, author of the book "The Two Babylons", anti-Catholic bigot, and source of all Nimrod claims. He was a member of the Church of Scotland, still hanging on to its anti-Catholic (and therefore anti-Christmas) stance since the 1550s. If anyone reading this has encountered Hislop or his distortions, do yourself a huge favor and read Ralph Woodrow's book "The Babylon Connection". You'll thank yourself. Moving on.....

Thomas Nast Santa

Back yet again to Santa Claus. The image changed again in 1862 when Thomas Nast (creator of the Republican Elephant and Democrat Mule) popularized Santa in red fur. This would not be the first time Santa was in red, but it was the most popular to date. Santa rarely appeared in other colors after this.

Civil War Star-Spangled Santa

Santa's home at the North Pole was also introduced at this time as a slight to the Confederate South. Until then, Saint Nicholas was often depicted as living in New Jerusalem or some other Heavenly estate.

Santa faced an existential crisis at this point since even the stove pipes would be replaced by radiators and duct heating. Santa was on the decline.

In the 1870s, governments start to concede to the popular demand for the Christmas. Bank holidays were established. Christmas become a bank holiday in Scotland in 1871. Slowly, Scotland moves back toward Christmas.

In 1872, Wilhelm Fuchtner, "The Father of the Nutcracker", started producing nutcrackers in assembly-line fashion. The family of carpenters would make toys in the winter for extra money and realized nutcrackers were a good choice for income and self-expression. The design was intended to convey a purpose. Soldiers were ornate yet expressionless to depict the harshness of life. Nutcrackers that looked like officials were intended to mock the ruling class.

Ronald Hutton mentions it was in the 1880s when greenery began to die off. No doubt the Christmas Tree played a large part. Only fir, holly, and mistletoe remained (p. 120). Artificial materials began to take over.

According to the article "History of Electric Christmas Tree Lights" on ThoughtCo:

"In 1882, an employee of Edison put on a show with electric lights that was fully intended to establish the practical application of electricity to the celebration of Christmas. Edward H. Johnson, a close friend of Edison and the president of the company Edison formed to provide illumination in New York City, used electric lights for the first time to illuminate a Christmas tree."

In 1879, Frank Woolworth pioneered the "five and dime" bargain store. When the song "It's Beginning To Look A Lot Like Christmas" (Bing Crosby, 1951) says, "take a look at the five and ten," it is likely referring to a Woolworth.

Woolworth practically invented the cheap toy. Until this point, lower-class families were too poor to afford gifts for Christmas. Hand-crafted toys were expensive. But with Woolworth's cheap mass-produced toys, practically anyone could have something. Afterward, Christmas would be geared almost entirely for children. At Woolworth, toys would be displayed only at certain times of the year out of respect for poor families. Thus, the Christmas-time toy display became popular.
Woolworth was also the first to produce manufactured Christmas Tree ornaments, in 1880.
Woolworth was also the store that popularized Christmas villages. The Christmas village started in the Czech Republic as elaborate Nativity scenes. (As a humorous aside, the word "putz", meaning 'to put up', comes from putting up these villages.) Woolworths imported cardboard villages from Germany to America and used them in Christmas displays. Ceramic villages came later.
In 1900, Joshua Lionel Cohen put a battery-powered electric motor onto a toy train so it could move on its own. He intended it to be in Woolworth's window displays, drawing attention to other merchandise. People began buying the toy trains. Thus, the Christmas Village, Lionel trains, and trains under the Christmas tree are all interrelated, and all go back to Woolworth.

In 1889, President Benjamin Harrison was the first to have a Christmas Tree in the White House. In 1894, President Grover Cleveland is credited with being the first to use electric lights on a privately-owned Christmas Tree.

In 1890, the first department store Santa arrives. Ironically, James Edgar, the man in the costume, was born in Scotland and moved to Boston - both locations were Puritan ground zero.

Tchaikovsky wrote his famous "The Nutcracker" ballet in 1892, based on Ernst Hoffman's "The Nutcracker and The Mouse King". Because of the Christmas timing in the ballet, nutcrackers became associated with Christmas.

"The Santa Claus" 1898

The first Christmas motion picture appeared in 1898. The 90-second film "Santa Claus", directed by George Albert Smith, has the honor. Christmas movies would become a mainstay of the season in the next century.

It was in this first decade of the 1900s when the last holdouts of gift-giving on New Year surrendered to the trend of gift-giving on Christmas Day. Ronald Hutton mentions Queen Victoria was still sending gifts at New Year in 1900 (p. 116). But that was its last gasp.

In 1908, the first printed Advent Calendar was made.

Some grand old songs come from this era - "Twelve Days of Christmas (1780), "The First Noel" (1823), "The Holly and The Ivy" (1823), "It Came Upon A Midnight Clear" (1849), "O Come, O Come O Come Emanual" (1251, but rewritten in 1851), "Good King Wenceslas" (1853), and "O Little Town of Bethlehem" (1868) from England, and "Deck the Halls" (1862) with music from Wales and lyrics by a Scott, and "O Holy Night" (1847) from France, and "Silent Night" (1818) from Germany.

I am putting the end of this era in 1915, due to the end of the Second Industrial Revolution. Note the complete lack of pagan origins in anything new during this era. We leave this era with Christmas on a serious upswing, enjoying popularity it hadn't seen in many places since Henry VIII. It is a secular event now, though, and getting more secular as we go. The day is clearly geared toward children now. Christmas, which was not very popular in America at the start of this era, is widely accepted. Traditions from around Europe have come together in the melting pot to be reinvented and sent back out.

The next step in history is the modern era. Christmas meets Madison Avenue and Hollywood, and becomes what it is today.

MODERN (1915 to Present)

The modern era is the time starting near the end of the Second Industrial Revolution, to the present (as you read this, right now). During this period, we see a great resurgence in Christmas, a solid focus on children, an expansion of the gift-giving traditions, the advent of television, a further widening and strengthening of secular traditions, and an identity crisis.

You live in this era. What is Christmas in this era to you? I bet there are as many answers to that as there are people. I think a common theme would be family, friends, and memories. I bet that would be a common theme from even the earliest years. The more things change, the more they stay the same. But a religious day stripped of its religion is a day without a set purpose. Christmas is searching for a reason to exist. Seems to me that reason is sentiment, children, and romance. I suppose it isn't beyond reason to speculate Christmas will one day absorb Valentine's Day.

One of the most well-known innovations of this era came to us in 1931. That was the fateful year Coca Cola hired Haddon Sunblom, creator of the Quaker Oats Man, to illustrate Santa Claus. His creation, a softer and simpler take on Thomas Nast's design, is the modern evolution of Santa Claus. The tradition of Santa exploded afterward. It was from here forward that Santa Claus begins to successfully absorb all other gift bringer characters. The only one to avoid this trend is the Christkindl, because it is particularly different, but that doesn't mean it was unscathed. Santa usually appears with the Christkindl, and has even taken a name from it, "Chris Kringle". Santa is now the single most recognizable Christmas character in the world. Some think Coca Cola invented Santa. No, they did not. But they might as well have.
Fun fact: Haddon Sundblom later gave Santa an elf helper, named Sprite Boy. This is why their lemon-lime soda is named Sprite. 

There is no way to know if this will be the final evolution of Santa. Given the way everything seems to change, I feel it would be naive to think it will be. Recently, there has been a push towards a younger, slimmer Santa. I also find it telling Coca Cola has almost abandoned Santa for polar bears in their holidays ads.

In 1934, Herbert W Armstrong prophesizes Jesus' return by 1936. I know, this factoid has nothing to do with Christmas. I just couldn't resist adding it.

And in 1939, the shiny, new Santa gets his shiny, new buddy, Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer, when Robert L. Ray writes a children's book featuring this character.

In the 1930s and 40s, the Nazi regime under the direction of Adolph Hitler began a campaign of secularization. Their intent was to set the party up as the quasi-religious center of the Reich. Christmas was forever altered by their efforts. Martha goes into great detail in her fascinating article, "Falsely Accused? Nazi Propaganda Lives On".

In the late 1820s, Joel Roberts Poinsett brought a new flower to America from Mexico. In the 1920s, the Ecke family of Southern California sold it as a potted plant. Paul Ecke Jr. took over the family business in 1963 and turned (you guessed it) the Poinsettia into the most popular potted plant in America.

And now for arguably the most influential new Christmas tradition of this era - the Christmas television special. The very first was "Mr. Magoo's Christmas Carol." It aired on NBC on December 18, 1962. It was a hit, and all the other Christmas specials you've seen owe it a debt of thanks. It was not the first television show with a Christmas-related plot, but it was the first special. Oddly enough, it was televised Christmas that gets the most credit for bringing Scotland fully back into the Christmas fold after four long centuries of avoiding it. The warmth of televised Christmas thawed their northern hearts more than Innis & Gunn ever could.

In 1957, Dr. Suess published "How The Grinch Stole Christmas!" I just saw an entire isle of Grinch-related merch at Hobby Lobby.

In the mid-1960s, multi-national corporations realized they could pump out cheap products by using Asian labor and television marketing. The era of commercials aimed directly at children went into full swing. Whole television shows were created just to market toys. Saturday morning became synonymous with cartoons. Woolworths, the heavyweight champion of cheap toys, could not compete.
It is a strange thing that even from the early 1800s it was said that merchandizers were at the heart of what is wrong with Christmas. The Industrialist blamed them for keeping it alive rather than allowing people to just go to work. Yet it really wasn't exactly true ...until here.

There are so many more traditions and highlights to talk about, it would take much too long to go over them all -- snow globes, Currier and Ives, aluminum trees, Bing Crosby, "White Christmas", The Chipmunks, the Norelco Santa commercial, flash mobs, ugly sweaters, "Grandma Got Run Over By A Reindeer", people getting trampled at Black Friday sales, the Star Wars Christmas Special, "A Christmas Story" with Ralphie almost shooting his eye out, Hans Gruber falling off the Nakatomi tower, Mariah Carey, Elf on a Shelf, music-synchronized Christmas lights displays, Dwight Schrute dressed up as Belsnickel, Holiday Baking Championship ... the list is endless.

What can I say about this Modern era? Clearly, our Christmas started in the previous. Christmas was gutted and reinvented.      Christmas - circa 1800.

CONCLUSION

Thus ends our eras tour. There you have it! We've reviewed Christmas from start to finish. Not quite as pagan as advertised!

I offer you my thoughts on the past and the future. I think we can summarize the entire history, and therefore the future, of Christmas up in this: Christmas reflects who we are.

So far as the past goes, I think the story of Christmas is one of romanticizing a past. Long past? No, your past. What we think of as "how Christmas used to be" is really only how it used to be when we were very young. But at most 100 years ago or so. What Christmas genuinely used to be is long, long ago and far, far away. And I think if we went back to it, most people would not like it.

What do I expect to come in the next era (the future)? I think the pendulum does swing!

So far as the future goes, I think we can learn from the past. Christmas is a mirror reflecting who we are. We have seen that Christmas has changed as cultures change. It will continue. If Christmas is not as sacred as some would prefer, perhaps the issue is that we are less than sacred than we should be. Change what you can control - yourself. Clearly, if we've learned one thing at all, it's that trying to wipe out Christmas doesn't work. A heavy-handed approach just makes things worse.

I want to make one comment about commercialization of Christmas. It is rather obnoxious, I will freely admit. But while we pine for days long gone, don't forget the blessings of the present moment. Until recently, the common family was too poor to afford very much. Which would you rather have - obnoxious advertisements and traffic, or high infant mortality? Our modern world is not all bad. What kind of a world do we live in where we sit our overweight rumps on a couch, with central heating and a flat-screen television, eating cookies, and complaining there is too much Christmas? (Oh God! To hear the insect on the leaf pronouncing there is too much life and wishing to be among his hungry brothers in the dust.) I think we all should take a small step back and consider the whole equation, and we should consider our own personal role in these conditions.

When I say Christmas reflects who we are, I suppose that betrays the need to define Christmas. Is it the traditions? Is it the spirit? Is it the memories? Is it the past? It just so happens while I was writing this, the Charlie Brown Christmas Special came on. I find I still agree with Linus. This is the meaning of Christmas:

(LUK. 2: 8-14) 8 Now there were in the same country shepherds living out in the fields, keeping watch over their flock by night. 9 And behold, an angel of the Lord stood before them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were greatly afraid. 10 Then the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid, for behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy which will be to all people. 11 For there is born to you this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. 12 And this will be the sign to you: You will find a Babe wrapped in swaddling cloths, lying in a manger.” 13 And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying: 14 “Glory to God in the highest, And on earth peace, goodwill toward men!”

One final mention of the "Christmas is pagan" narrative. Is Christmas pagan? No! I think this series on the history of Christmas shows as much.
There are many Herbert Armstrongs and Alexander Hislops out in the world, railing against Christmas and claiming everything goes back to ancient paganism. Their claims were little other than manipulations, calculated half-truths, and outright lies. I can strongly attest that there is a disturbingly high amount of misinformation about history in general, and Christmas in particular, floating around in books and on the internet. It isn't all from amateurs, either. Take for instance James Frazer's "Golden Bough". People selectively spread speculation, theories, and abandoned information as fact. We have pagans trying to reclaim something that was never theirs. We have fundamentalist Protestants desperately trying to give Christmas to the pagans. And then we have various groups of people (including yours truly) trying to find the genuine path we all took through time to get here, but most of our information goes unread. The average person just wanting a little information faces a figurative field of land mines. Manipulations, calculated half-truths, and outright lies abound.

Did Christmas once have some traditional elements taken from paganism? Yes. But Christmas has been gutted and reinvented new. Gift-giving, Christmas Cards, and greenery swags are about the only things left. Yet those did not start as pagan religious traditions, they were secular, and ubiquitous across all humanity. Everyone who can decorates throughout the year, gives gifts, and writes. There is nothing at all wrong about that. We could accuse almost everything else in our lives of this same "paganism", including what we do in our public and private worship practices. I do not believe in "once pagan, always pagan" at all any longer. It is unbiblical. It is unworkable. It relies on gross mischaracterizations of history and reality. That should be a dead giveaway of its quality. If you have to distort history to invent accusations, and ignore far more than you include, then truth is not as much on your side as you believe. If the modern Puritans who fret over paganism hiding under every bed and every rock really understood the magnitude of the standard they have set for themselves, and genuinely tried to live by their own standard, they would be unable to function. By their standard, shoes are pagan! It is a self-defeating system. It makes even God Himself into a pagan, it rips away His authority and power to redeem, and it ignores what repeatedly happens in the very Bible these ones claim to be defending. It is the diametric opposite of the Christmas message. It is a self-serving and self-righteous way. Its true intent and use is to elevate the self by putting others down. (Don't believe me? Give them some verified factual information and just see how quickly they ignore it and attack you.) If you have to put others down in order to elevate yourself, then God is not as much on your side as you believe. I reject it entirely. I suggest you, dear fair-minded reader, do the same.

We have MANY other articles that dive into "once pagan, always pagan" if you are interested in more.

I hope you've enjoyed our walk through the eras of Christmas. I did! I believe this was my favorite - and by far most involved - research project I've ever done. I pray God uses it to bless your life, and you use it to bless others.
Ugh! Now I have to start updating the Christmas FAQ. Lol

MERRY CHRISTMAS, EVERYONE!

************

It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )

Acts 17:11

************

Christmas Eras Tour - Part III

Welcome back again! We are going on a tour of the seven eras of the history of Christmas.

As a reminder -
I have been reading "Stations of the Sun" by Ronald Hutton. One thing I noticed while reading is that Christmas went through stages. I see at least 7 eras in the past 2,000 years. Each one is marked by its own characteristics which were either greatly changed or outright abandoned in the following era. I thought it might be worthwhile to take us on a tour of those eras. Since this post pulls mainly from Hutton, and Hutton focuses mainly on England where Christmas is concerned, this post will, too.

In the previous post in this series, we reviewed era 3 (Catholic). In that era, we reviewed the years 567 to 1517, the golden years of Christmas. It was a time of fun and community. Today, we will tour eras 4 (Oppression) and 5 (Restoration).

As the names imply, today's content will be less festive. We are less interested in the traditions in this era (good thing there weren't many new) and more interested in the politics. I want to tell the story of how Christmas flatlined on the table, but was resuscitated.

Enjoy! But not too much or you'll be fined 5 shillings.

REFORMATION AND OPPRESSION (1517 to 1661 AD)

The Reformation and Oppression era is the time starting in 1517 when Martin Luther sparked the Protestant Reformation by nailing his 95 theses to the door of Wittenberg Church, through the Commonwealth period in Great Britain, to the start of the Industrial Revolution. During this era, Christmas gets banned in the British Isles and America, traditions get altered, then Christmas makes a comeback. Sort of.

It isn't all of Protestantism that caused this era to be named "Oppression", just a few denominations. The three big players in today's post are the Anglicans, Presbyterians, and especially the Puritans.

How Christmas went for you in these years depended almost entirely on where you lived. During this period we see the Scottish banning it, followed by the American Pilgrims banning it, then the English under Oliver Cromwell banning it. However, at the same time, Christmas changed in Germania and Scandinavia, but not to the degree it did in England. They had no fundamentalist Puritan movement. And it changed almost not at all in Catholic areas such as France, Italy, and Spain. But these are broad strokes. No country was all Protestant or all Catholic. They were mixed.

As mentioned in the previous posts, there were two big gift-giving days: the feast of St. Nicholas, and New Year. After Martin Luther sparked the Reformation, he discouraged the veneration of saints. Henry VIII would do the same later on. This means, for Protestants anyway, Saint Nicholas could no longer bring gifts to children on December 6. Luther moved traditions from Saint Nicholas' Day to Christmas Eve (aka Heiligabend, holy evening). He also adapted an older German tradition into a new gift bringer to replace Saint Nicholas: the Christkindl (the Christ Child). This opened the way for gift giving on Christmas Eve where it had not been before, and new Christmas gift-bearing characters to emerge later.

To complicate matters further, just because a tradition was discouraged does not mean it went away. One example is ... Saint Nicholas. He was so beloved he was never really replaced. Neither were the traditions on December 6th. Traditions were never fully moved to Christmas Eve. It was more like they were copied and pasted. Saint Nicholas is in both places. And since St. Nick is in both, his companions are, too. Krampus et al get associated with Christmas Eve around this time.

Meanwhile, in the early 1500s in Germany, the Christmas Tree tradition is gaining popularity as the actors guilds keep setting them up in public. No, Martin Luther did not invent them. It is popularly claimed he invented putting candles on them, to add the light Jesus brings to the tradition. Many trees since have burned accidentally. The Germans would take the tree tradition wherever they went.
At the same time, the Paradise Plays which gave rise to the tree tradition, were dying out. Again quoting Martha from her post "Falsely Accused? Christmas Trees Were Christian Theater Props":

"Most plays died out in the 1500s, despite the fact that they were still very popular. In London, they blamed it on the rise of Shakespeare and similar theater. Elsewhere in Europe, it's more obvious that the Reformation was their death knell. Early on, scripts were revised to eliminate Catholic themes. As time went on, the Church called in scripts for editing and held until it was too late in the year to perform them (perhaps until hours of sunlight and air temperatures were prohibitive), Rhys writes (p. 24). Protestants weren't the only ones to discourage the plays – in France, the  Catholic-leaning Parlement de Paris outlawed the plays in 1548."

Oh, by the way - 'tannenbaum' is technically not how you say Christmas Tree in German. A tannenbaum is any fir tree. A Weihnachtsbaum is a Christmas Tree. The song "O Tannenbaum" is not technically a Christmas song, and never mentions Christmas, but it has since become a Christmas song. It was written in the 1800s, but is based off an older song from this era.

At this point, I am going to walk you through a series of political events in the British Isles that led from the golden age of happy Christmas to the total suppression of the day. I am not going to go into much detail, because this post is about Christmas. But there are things I feel are important to what I said in the first post in this series: "I am particularly interested in showing how our modern Christmas is mostly a product of the three eras before it (ie. 7 is caused by 4, 5, & 6)."

English Monarchy

King Henry VIII created the Church of England in 1534. This one event started a slow chain reaction that contributed greatly to the English Civil Wars and the outlawing of Christmas. Protestantism was now on the rise in many areas of northern Europe, and Christmas in particular would bear the brunt. Henry VIII wanting a divorce is just as much a cause of Christmas as we see it today as is anything else. Law of unintended consequences.
Henry VIII also discouraged veneration of saints. This is where the Twelve Days start to dry up and Christmas Day starts to become the singular big winter festival. We talked in the last era about how this would happen. But nothing drastic happened quite yet.

In 1553, Henry's daughter, "Bloody" Mary I, a Catholic, became queen. Mary violently wrenched England back to Catholicism. Every movement towards Protestantism done by her predecessors was undone. By force. Many Protestants fled England for the mainland where, as fate would have it, they encountered John Calvin.

Five years later, Mary was succeeded by her sister Elizabeth I, a Protestant. All that Mary did was now undone once again. By force. A pendulum does swing! This is the period of priest holes, Mass performed in attics, and songs to help people remember the Catechism while it was banned. Elizabeth escapes the name "Bloody" only because she won. As Catholics began fleeing England for Catholic nations on the mainland, the Protestants who fled earlier began to return ...with their new Calvinist ideas. Here began the Puritan movement - a name given to a group of fundamentalist Calvinist Presbyterians who wanted increasingly radical reforms in England and its Church.

Catholic symbols and traditions were removed, often violently. Here began the polemics - calling anything Catholic "Popery", all Catholics "Papists", and quite intentionally calling Christmas "Yule" in order to sully it as much as possible with a pagan association. The people who try to find the source of Christmas in Yule because some people call it Yule seem to forget that Christmas was once purposefully called Yule in order to sully it. The antagonistic comments grew over the years to a ridiculous height, as they often do. Everything was 'heathen' and belonged directly to the devil. According to Alison Weir in "A Tudor Christmas", plum pudding was called "the broth of abominable things" in reference to Isaiah 65: 4 (p. 161).

It is important that you understand the attacks against Christmas were not because they had proof of anything pagan, but because they saw Christmas as Catholic.
I suppose only a few stopped to remember how they all used to be Catholic, too.

The Protestant reforms in England moved into Scotland, mainly under the leadership of John Knox (unsurprisingly, a student of John Calvin), where they would be taken in the full Scottish spirit. In 1560, Elizabeth put Protestants into power in Scotland. They established the Church of Scotland (aka. "the Kirk") - which is not the same denomination as the Church of England and is not run by the Scottish monarch. It worked on a Presbyterian model, which means it is led by Elders chosen from the lay members, as opposed to the Anglican church's Episcopalian model, which means it is led by formal Bishops similar to the Catholic Church. This is the dream Puritans had for the Church of England. By 1566, barely more than five years later, Christmas was no longer among the feasts of the Church in Scotland. But it wasn't just Christmas. All of the major holidays were out.
Fun fact: It is this church that will eventually spawn one Alexander Hislop. Now you understand his motives a little better.

Elizabeth I was succeeded in 1603, and the royal houses of England and Scotland were united, by James I (England and Ireland), also titled James VI (Scotland), famous for ordering the creation of the King James Version of the Bible. James disappointed both the Scottish and English reformers by not being as reform-minded as they wished. James I actually enjoyed Christmas!

Here, we get a huge development in tradition.

Some nobles had begun wintering in London rather than remaining at their mansions and keeping an open house for the poor, as they had been expected to. In 1616, King James tried to reverse the trend. According to Hutton, this act helped inspire one Ben Johnson to write a masque (p. 19). We talked about masques in the last era. They are a type of an elaborate play which grew out of the mumming tradition. Mr. Johson's masque was called "Christmas, His Masque". In it, Christmas was personified as a joyous, silly figure wearing a hat, and a beard. Some lines in the masque were anti-Puritan. This Christmas figure returned several more times with various appearances over the next few decades. We will keep checking in on this figure as he evolves.
There are some slight digs against the Puritans in this masque. You can find the same in Shakespeare's works.

In 1620, some Puritans, fed up the reformation of England wasn't moving quickly or far enough for their liking, leave England to start a Calvinist utopia in the New World. Their aversion for Christmas is legendary. Things were going their way, but not perfectly, so they left for a wilderness thousands of miles away. This should give you an idea about their general attitude.

King James could not directly order the Kirk to do anything. So, in 1621, he arranged for them to enact "The Five Articles of Perth". The fifth article bound the Kirk to observe Christmas, Good Friday, Easter, Ascension, and Pentecost. After 60 years, Christmas was restored in Scotland and looked to be safe once again!

...But the Kirk didn't appreciate this and worked to undo it. They are still a little salty about it to this day. The Five Rules were repealed 17 years later. This new ban would last until 1712. But merely lifting the ban did not return Christmas to that land. That would take longer still.

Yule Log

In the 1620-30s, a man named Robert Herrick first used the term "Christmas Log." You may know it better as the Yule Log. Remember, the names Christmas and Yule were interchangeable at this time, and did not actually refer to Yule. This is the earliest definite mention of the Yule Log tradition. Here. In this decade. Far later than most people would have us believe.
My question is - if this tradition is genuinely from 1184, which we talked about in the last era, why the 500-year gap without any other mention?
In this period, the Yule Log was gigantic! It took a team of young men and often a horse to draw out of the woods.

King James was succeeded in 1625 by Charles I. Charles, although he was a Protestant, was no friend of the Puritans. They were no fan of his, either. Charles married a Catholic woman, and appreciated older traditions. This bothered the Puritans. The Puritans wanted the King out of church leadership, and the Bishops, too. This bothered Charles. He saw a threat to the Divine Right of Kings, so he worked against them. Thousands of Puritans left for the New World. After years of tensions, most of which centered around particulars of religion and who has authority in the church, wars broke out. From 1639 to 1653, multiple wars engulfed England, Scotland, and Ireland. The Wars of the Three Kingdoms.

The Commonwealth

In November 1644, The Church of England ruled that no other day but Sunday was biblical. The official liturgy in 1645 had no mention of Christmas, making its removal legal. Just like Scotland and the Puritan colony in America, Christmas was now out in England.
This doesn't mean Christmas was illegal, just that it wasn't being celebrated in churches. People kept it in their homes, and there was a secular, public observance in general.

As with most everything else in this era, there were unintended consequences. Christmas traditions were secularized. Anyone who studies Christmas soon runs into claims about midwinter festivals throughout history. The middle of winter, stripped of sacred Christmas symbolism, became just like any other excuse to drink and cause trouble. Where once we had holly and ivy symbolizing Jesus, we now have any plant that was green at the time - ivy, holly, box, yew, rosemary, laurel, broom, etc - and mistletoe - symbolizing nothing in particular. Hogneling and souling door-to-door to raise money for the church were replaced by groups of people collecting money for various efforts, sometimes by force. Christmas was alive, but the spirit of Christmas was not. I don't mean to minimize our modern complaints, but perhaps a little thankfulness our Christmas is not like that of the early-1600s is warranted.

Charles I was executed on orders of Parliament in January 1649. His son, Charles II, was crowned in Scotland, but that ended badly for him, so he fled to France. The Monarchy was ended, replaced by the fundamentalist Puritan government known as the Commonwealth of England. And with the monarchy technically went the Nobility. Here, the nobility exit center stage in the culture.

Oliver Cromwell, a Puritan, ruled England, Wales, Ireland, and Scotland as Lord Protector from 1653 to 1658. The Puritans could not abide the continued existence of that Papist Christmas. Cromwell did not personally ban Christmas, but he oversaw the government that did. In 1647, an act of Parliament banned Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost. Out were their traditions - to the slightest act - and even festive attitudes were punishable offenses. In ten years, Christmas went from religious to secular and now to illegal. The 1650s under Cromwell was the decade without a Christmas. Sort of.

There was resistance to this heavy-handedness. Not everyone appreciated their traditions being banned. There were riots and protests large and small. Some hung mistletoe as an act of defiance. Parliament complained their authority was simply being ignored. They, of course, reacted with even more heavy-handedness.

Father Christmas

One particularly noteworthy result of this resistance is ... Father Christmas. A personification of Christmas, like "Christmas, His Masque" thirty-six years earlier, Father Christmas appears in several propaganda pieces in the 1650s. I will give you the two most well known.
The first is "The Vindication of Christmas", in 1653, by John Thomas. Thomas was known for writing Christmas-related works. In Vindication, Christmas is a symbol of good cheer. How can you be against good cheer? Even though this character is clearly a personification of Christmas, the name "Father Christmas" is not used.
The second is "The Examination and Trial of Old Father Christmas", in 1658. Here, the name Father Christmas appears for the first time. In the illustration, Father Christmas is quite saintly, and not at all fun or silly. Note the fur-lined robe and hat. Some people say Santa comes from Odin because of this. As you can clearly see for yourself, this is not the case. (People claiming everything comes from Odin gets tiresome.) This is the general look Father Christmas will keep in England until the 1900s. (Note: The book "There Really Is A Santa Claus" by William Federer, says Father Christmas was created by Henry VIII. Upon deeper inspection, I find no evidence for this.)

It is important to understand Father Christmas is technically not Santa Claus. There are some major differences:

• He is the personification of Christmas itself; representing the day, its characteristics, and traditions.
• He is the direct descendant of masques.
• He is a pro-Christmas propaganda piece created in England.
• He is not based on Saint Nicholas legends.
• He is not a gift-bringer.

English Monarchy ...Again

This whole time, Charles II was hiding in France. Oliver Cromwell died in 1658, succeeded by his son, who resigned nine months later. In 1660, after a brief period of in-fighting, Charles II was invited back to England to reign as King of England, Ireland, and Scotland. Parliament declared he had been King since his father's death. (Remember when I mentioned he was coronated in Scotland before he fled?) Thus ended the Commonwealth. A pendulum does swing!

In England, all laws were invalidated going back to 1642. In Scotland, all legislation since 1637 was revoked. This reactivated the Five Articles of Perth. The era of the Commonwealth was simply erased as if it had never been. And Christmas was back, baby!

Sort of.

I focused almost exclusively on England so far. It was necessary, since what happened in England affected everyone else but mostly America. I will not go into detail on what was happening outside of England, but in the Catholic nations, such as Italy, France, and Spain, things moved on about the same as they always had. In Germany and Scandinavian areas, the Reformation created new traditions but the extremes of John Calvin's students were contained, which allowed these areas to retain much more of their original Catholic flavor. This comes into play when migrants from these areas eventually make their way to America. I refer primarily to the Dutch and New Amsterdam.

There is one tradition outside of England that we can't ignore: leaving shoes out on the eve of Saint Nicholas' Day. This tradition is important because it will later evolve into hanging stockings by the fireplace.
It is possible this tradition started in this era. I am saying possible because the actual history of this tradition is very difficult to locate. Even though many people write about it almost no one gives historical sources, not even Hutton. So, it could be from the previous era. All I can say for certain about the age is it must long predate the poem "A Visit From Saint Nicholas" by Clement Clarke Moore in 1823. It does seem to be Scandinavian; Dutch in particular. Certainly, the claims about children leaving shoes out for Odin's horse were invented recently, just like the story of Frigg and mistletoe and Santa and Odin. There is no medieval historical evidence for this claim whatsoever, nor does the tradition make any sense within the mythology of Odin.

I am putting the end of this era in 1660, due to the restoration of the Monarchy in England and the undoing of the years of Commonwealth. Christmas was legally back after its long, dark night of the soul. A pendulum does swing!

It must be understood that many of the things modern people take for granted about modern Christmas and feel were always part of Christmas were actually a result of the changes that began in this period. Christmas before this period was not like Christmas afterward. Sure, it was on the same day and remembers the same event, and even has many of the same traditions, but Christmas had been gutted and would be reinvented. This will not be the end of it. Christmas has hurdles to face in the next eras.

The next step in history is the restoration of Christmas when the Protestants who once oppressed it suddenly found a nostalgic streak within themselves and became comfortable with the day.

RESTORATION (1661 to 1760 AD)

The Restoration era is the time when Protestants stopped banning Christmas and finally became comfortable it. Sort of. During this period, Christmas became more family-centered, old traditions began to be replaced by new regional traditions, and everything was mashed together as it migrated into the "great American melting pot".

Charles II did not end England's issues. He merely improved them. Efforts to ban Christmas would continue for some time, especially in Scotland. Certain Protestants were unhappy with the erasure of decades of what they saw as advances. Christmas would be removed as an official holiday again in Scotland by the end of the 1690s, not to fully return for almost 250 years. Wondering why you see so many German, English, and even Irish Christmas traditions but not many Scottish? That's why. In Scotland, the New Year would be their main focus at this time of year. "Ald Lang Sein" is Scottish. How ironic they were trying to remove what they saw as Catholic paganism, which was a false accusation, only to retain a legitimately ancient Roman custom.

I will return again to Ronald Hutton's brilliant observation, to continue his thoughts from the Catholic era:

"The church produced its own institutional rituals during this whole span of time, often overlapping or blending with the others. These were greatly diminished after the Reformation, and from the seventeenth century the festive role of the parish and great household was also much reduced. Instead the principal unit of celebration became the local community, much less formally defined and growing ever more complex with time."
-Ronald Hutton, "Stations of the Sun", p.426

What Hutton is saying is, during this period, the center of Christmas migrated away from communal worship at the church building and out into the towns and especially individual homes. The community and the home are the center of society, and thus the focus of traditions. More and more, children became the heart of the day, especially for the upper and middle classes who could afford it.

The decentralized and more individualist nature of Protestantism affected their general manner. Catholics tended to have the church at the center of everything, but Protestants much less so. Even Christmas Carols moved into the home. Hutton mentions several Christmas Carols were written specifically to be sung in homes at time time (p. 21).
This is precisely what Martha noticed in her study on the development of Christmas Trees in Germany. Protestants in Germany were taking their new love for the tree tradition home with them. (for more, read "Falsely Accused? Christmas Trees Were Christian Theater Props").

Again, we see Christmas reflecting the culture of the time.

Before the suppression, Christmastide was spread out across the Twelve Days onto various Saint's feast days. Now, with the abandonment of the veneration of saints, all of those traditions are contracting into one grand Christmas Day. I mentioned in the last post this would happen. It will happen much more in the next era.

Christmas Day in general started with a church service, then comes the celebrating. People would give to charity, enjoy a party, eat, visit family, take in a show, do some caroling ...the usual things many people do today. Those were all things done in eras 3 and 4, but in a changed way.

There were exceptions. The tradition of giving servants the day after Christmas off and providing them with some gifts remained. The feast of St. Stephen became reimagined into Boxing Day in the 1740s. The tradition of gift-giving remained at New Year.

A strong opposition to Christmas and anything Catholic emigrated to America. You no doubt heard how the Pilgrims in the New World banned Christmas. You could be fined for having a too festive a spirit on Christmas. But there were plenty of other immigrants in the New World besides the Pilgrims. Christmas in America was a very patchy, local thing. What you got depended on what community you were from. You must abandon the modern idea of one country - there were 13 quite distinct colonies at this time. Most importantly to Christmas were the Dutch in New York. The Dutch, although Protestant, were from that section of Europe near Germany that never rejected Christmas. They loved it! And they loved Saint Nicholas. How do you turn around the bleak days of the Oppression era? The Dutch, that's how. It was the Dutch who brought a wondrous old Christmas to the New World.

An important development in this era is mistletoe. Due to the suppression of Christmas during the previous era, the popular choices in greenery expanded. When the suppression ceased, we see the English mistletoe traditions expand through Europe. It was particularly attractive around Christmas time since that is when it berries out. This is the time period when we start seeing mistletoe used specifically as a Christmas decoration rather than only a medicinal herb. Blend that with a general repression of sexuality, and you will get the next development in the mistletoe tradition.

Another novelty from this era, and my personal favorite of all, is the nutcracker. Nutcrackers had been around for centuries, but by the mid-1700s they finally take the form we know today. The soldiers are meant to look like those of the Napoleonic era.

Now come the days of the great Johann Sebastian Bach. Some grand old songs were written in this period - "Joy To The World" (written in 1719 but later put to music from 1848), "Hark the Herald Angels Sing" (1739-54), and "Adeste Fidelis" (1751, my personal favorite).

I am putting the end of this era in 1760, due to the Industrial Revolution. I would have put this date even later, allowing for the spread of industrialization, but I decided at the start this post would be primarily based on Hutton, so 1760 it is.

The next step in history is the Industrial Revolution. A fantastic time for business owners who had little interest in traditions, but a time of identity crisis for Christmas. This next era is incredibly important to our modern Christmas. Perhaps the most important. The day survived a religious suppression and resuscitation only to face a secular suppression and reinvention. A pendulum does swing!

See you next time for Part IV!

************

It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )

Acts 17:11

************