Reply to Gail Re: Xmas

Written by Chris Dierkes

My piece last week on Why I Hate Christmas stirred up a bit of controversy (as well as received many cheers). Anyway, Gail Hochachka (author of two excellent pieces on this site and good friend of mine) wrote a critical comment and left some good questions for me. I thought they deserved a separate response here rather than being buried in the comments section to that piece.

Gail's comment:

I've noticed that several of your posts are "against" this or that, including this title "why I hate...." Here, I get your rant. Though, I admit I was hoping for some inspiration.

Why do I go to church on Christmas (and rarely the rest of the year)? Because it's not my spiritual practice yet I go for the tradition, to honour the lineage that grew me and fed my family's culture. But also because I am hoping and yearning--like seeking Light in the darkness--for inspiration. Leaving mass often with glimmers of where in the gospels and the readings there are entry points for a deeper layer of practice, and yet deeply saddened that it isn't highlighted. Why not? are we, the congregation, really seen to be that childlike that we wouldn't 'get' it if the priest shared greater depth? ...saddened when i see people around me in the congregation yawning. ...frustrated (and depressed?) that I want to go 'home' and when I do, I find I don't fit anymore.

So, I go hoping for some inspiration... For some depth in the veneer. You, in my opinion, are one among few who can offer this, and I for one would be very open to hearing what you love about Christmas one of these days.

I appreciate Gail's kind words but there are many many people (alive and dead) who have given inspirational, depth-filled sermons on the meaning of Christmas.

Here's the Archbishop of Canterbury's Christmas Sermon from this year.

Here's the Pope's Christmas message.

Here's one from Pope Leo the Great (5th century).

Look up any of the great names in Christianity and they all have Christmas reflections: Luther, Teresa of Avila, The Wesley Brothers, Thomas Merton, John Chrysostom, and so on. Or any number of lesser known but beautiful reflections from Christians around the world.

There's deep Christmas homilies out the wazoo--about 2,000 years of them really. I don't know which church Gail is going to, but she could always come to where I work. The sermon I heard on Christmas Eve from Bishop Michael Ingham was quite profound--on the theme of hope. [When my church gets the sermon audio and text up, I'll link to it.]

More important than all of those--I would recommend reading the Christmas gospel stories themselves. Lose all the schmaltz of baby angels and just read the stories. That's Chapters 1 and 2 of the Gospels of Luke and Matthew. And the Prologue to John's Gospel, Gospel of John Chapter 1, verses 1-14 (the latter is a cosmic story not a birth narrative of Jesus).

I just think the value of sermons (inspirational or otherwise) is massively overestimated in terms of their practical, concrete effects for the spiritual growth of people. In my mind it sets up a dynamic where people conceive of themselves as spiritual needy and look to someone else to fill them up. I find it a fairly disempowering model. This is why I suggest reading the stories for oneself and wrestling with them. They are many many layers to the texts to be sure, but they are also quite direct and speak to people 2,000 years later.

Reading between the lines of the gospel accounts of Jesus, he was quite ambivalent about his role of public teaching and healing. The group known in the gospels as "the crowds" are clearly distinguished from Jesus' followers who are called disciples. Jesus does perform public inspirational teaching and healing acts but then pointedly calls for people to be disciples. And the bar for discipleship is set really high. That bar includes (but is not limited to):

--abandoning one's biological family to join a fictive kin community ("family of God")

--selling off/giving away much, if not all, of one's wealth

--accepting persecution and the possibility of arrest, torture, or even execution.

In fact as a gospel mandate, the only thing Jesus ever commanded the church to do was "make disciples of all nations teaching them to obey everything I (Jesus) have taught." To my mind, that's the last thing on earth occurring during the Christmas season nor really it seems to me do churches do that throughout the rest of the year. Because, again, the focus is on meeting people's stated spiritual needs. This mindset turns church into another consumer product, what Trungpa Rinpoche called spiritual materialism. And along with consumerism and materialism goes individualism: "my needs, my search for meaning, my spiritual journey, etc."

People have been giving profound reflections on Christmas for 2,000 years and still The West slides further and further into secularism. Maybe better sermons and more beautiful Christmas services aren't the answer. Or at least they are not by themselves the answer.

As I mentioned in that piece last week I don't really like to discuss my understanding of the meaning(s) of Christmas by itself. I feel it strips Christmas from its rightful place in the year long liturgical calendar of the church. It takes Christmas out of the context of the entire sweep of the Christian story. I'm not saying non-Christians can't find any meaning or value in the stories (they were after all stories written by Jews about Jews), but my work is in the world of church, so I think I need to uphold its teaching.

The Christmas season, which Western Christians are now in (Merry Christmas Season to those who keep it!), quickly leads to the season of Epiphany. If Christmas is about the Light incarnating in human flesh, then Epiphany is about the choice of whether to follow that Light or not. The theme of discipleship again--not a theme people who only go on Christmas or Easter will hear. After Epiphany comes Lent leading up to Holy Week, The Passion of Jesus, his execution, burial, and resurrection.

If someone has decided in Epiphany to follow The Light on its mission of revealing and enacting The Kingdom of God, then in Lent such a person is lead to question whether he or she is really up for the cost of discipleship. Am I, are we, really willing to follow this all the way to the end? Am I really going to follow Jesus' command, to take up my cross and follow him? Am I really going to take up the instrument of my own torture, shame, paranoia and trust him? Am I going to open myself up to be a sacrifice? Am I going to do this without seeking revenge, all the while forgiving my murderers? Am I really going to pray, "not my will but your will be done"? Am I going to follow this all the way to death, to the incoherence of hell and hope there is some resurrection on the far side?

I used I there because I want to emphasize that I'm a manifest failure in innumerable ways as a disciple. In classic theological language, I'm a sinner. Fortunately Christianity has a great deal of teaching on Divine Mercy and unearned grace.

Like I said, I don't really like telling any story absent the larger context, absent the larger sweep of the big story. I don't know how else to do it. So my Christmas sermon would probably be more about blood, guts, afterbirth, babies shitting themselves and puking and the insane notion that this is God. God is pooping in his drawers. There's more to the story of course, but it never loses this element of God's helplessness.

It always strikes me that the two time a year churchgoers come at Christmas and Easter. One read on that is that they want the good stuff, the happy stories without the pain and suffering. I just don't find that to be true to life. My experience is that, on the largescale, people are looking to religion or spirituality to free them from their pain and if Christianity is to teach anything it would seem to be that the only way is to go into the pain not away from it.

* Image of The God-Bearer Mary and Christ Child thanks to Flickr-er bobosh_t under Creative Commons License.

Tagged under

Latest from Chris Dierkes

Join the Discussion

Commenting Policy

Beams and Struts employs commenting guidelines that we expect all readers to bear in mind when commenting at the site. Please take a moment to read them before posting - Beams and Struts Commenting Policy

6 comments

Comment Link Wednesday, 28 December 2011 06:39 posted by Gail Hochachka
Dear Chris,

Thank you so much for taking the time to write this. It is very helpful. Sharing my heart on my sleeve, as I did in my comment to your previous piece, is always a vulnerable thing to do (especially on the internet), and I was a little worried as to how you'd respond. But I decided to post it anyway, as I see you to be the one person who's formally holding the very role to which I was needing over this holiday. Here, you have met me and directed me to several sources that will definitely help in my search and inquiry. (I hope it helped others too beyond me.) Thank you.

I love your contextual explanation of the Christian path through the year and the three points for discipleship. Amazingly, although I grew up in the church (Anglican, although baptized Russian Orthodox) til I was 12, and then practiced with guidance from our mutual friend Rollie and would often attend Catholic mass wherever I was (El Salvador, Smithers, Peru, Berkeley) in my early to mid 30s, with a huge dose of liberation theology from working in Latin American throughout, I have actually not learned that liturgical calendar as you laid it out (and the contemplative practices it would include) or the discipleship points! This is precisely my predicament!! There are aspects to this practice (those and many others) that I just don't GET, even with this as my background. How that could be, I really do not know... I am embarrassed to even admit it, actually, like there was something lacking in me such that no minister over all those years bothered to share these type of inner workings of the practice. At the same time, I find it a little weird, and it is a concern for me as I consider if or how I could pass this on to my own child (due this Spring).

Perhaps it is a testament that this may have been my TRADITION, but it has never actually been my PRACTICE. Perhaps it is a testament to the complexity of the religion. Perhaps I was just too young at the outset to take the bigger picture and then never asked to be filled in as an adult. Maybe I haven't proven myself or entered the faith in the right way yet, or committed at the level of disciple, and thus there remain doors closed off... Regardless, one would think the liturgical calendar and those three points of becoming a disciple are the more preliminary pieces of the practice; that's not even scratching the surface of the more mystical, contemplative dimensions!! I find it a bit strange, truth be told. And confusing...

Anyway... My husband and I are deep in this inquiry in light of our baby on the way--intending to raise our child in a spiritual context, yet turned off by both the religiosity in some circles and the uber-secular trends in society today. At this particular point in our discussions, we are leaning in the direction of our own practices. It is always better to teach by one's own embodiment.

And yet for him and I both, we love the liberation theology we've been part of and witnessed in the South, and are deeply marked by this tradition in our own ways. So perhaps it'll be an integration of the mystical practices... I dunno yet.... I am trusting it'll unfold as it needs to.

This, I sense, is a hugely unexplored terrain for post-modern (and post-postmodern) parents, and that there are pioneers among us that would have a lot to share on it (our friends at Next Step Integral come to mind)...

There's obviously a lot going on for me about it and I really appreciate your time and wisdom shared here! I hope we can continue to discuss these types of things. And whenever I am in Vancouver, I keep my eye on when you are preaching and what events are happening at your church.

Thank you again.
Comment Link Wednesday, 28 December 2011 17:48 posted by Chris Dierkes
Gail,

I'm glad you found this helpful. It's a tough road and I don't have any great answers (I don't think). It is true that in the more ritual oriented forms of Christianity that we tend to do what we do and not explain why we are doing it--I think that's a holdover of the medieval mentality where society was formally Christian.

Part of the other strangeness in North America is there was a historically irregular boom of churches in the first half of the 20th century. Records are hard to come by but some research suggests that actually weekly attendance during the Middle Ages was like 8% of the population. So churches are now seen to be emptying when in reality there was this weird period that causes this enormous boom that was unsustainable and now it's heading back to more common levels (a small minority).

I think we are in a for a longer period of attempts at reconstruction of new construction--the kind you mention you and your family are up to. The old order is clearly passing away but the new one (or ones) have not yet emerged.

Buckle up is the only advice I really have--I think it's gonna be a wild ride :)
Comment Link Saturday, 31 December 2011 03:30 posted by Bruce Sanguin
Now. that's a Christmas sermon I'd love to hear! I dare you, my friend. :-)

I really appreciated your contextualizing Christmas, along with the critique of consumer religion.

I find the Christmas Eve sermon, at which the Christmas and Easter crowd appear, to be the most challenging one of the year - along with Easter.

But, you know, after 27 years I've come to realize that it's also a great opportunity to give 'er, even to the point of shocking these beautiful people with a bit of the gospel that you proclaim in your post. I agree that too much emphasis is placed on the sermon, generally speaking. The problem is that mainline churches haven't really focused on catechism, spiritual discipline, and practice either. So what are you going to do? I've adopted an attitude of welcoming these visitors open-heartedly, but not dumbing down Christmas in the least. Some of them leave baffled. Others pissed. And some genuinely grateful.

This is also why I've decided to shift my ministry to teaching and away from preaching (though I will be preaching 20 times a year or so still).

And you are on my roster of teachers whom I shall be calling upon!

Thanks Chris
Comment Link Sunday, 01 January 2012 18:12 posted by Gail Hochachka
Bruce and Chris,

Bruce, I would be one of the 'genuinely grateful' if I were ever in Vancouver for such a Christmas eve teaching. And, moving from preaching to teaching sounds utterly inspiring, and may have been the missing link for me in the church.

Most of all, this discussion has made me realize the ways in which I am 'picking and choosing'... believing that since this was my religion by upbringing, that I could dabble in church-going occasionally through the year; that because I was baptized, that was okay to do; that I could somehow extricate the parts which resonate for me, and leave the rest.

For example yesterday I found in an old Ken Wilber book a stunning teaching from the Gospel of St. Thomas:

"They said to Him: Shall we then, being children,
Enter the Kingdom? Jesus said to them:
When you make the two one, and
When you make the inner as the outer
And the outer as the inner and the above
As the below, and when
You make the male and the female into a single one,
Then you shall enter the Kingdom."

Wow! That makes sense to me! But, I can’t, with integrity, pick and choose what aspects resonate, while discarding other aspects of the faith! In other words, I’ve been 'spitting out the bones before swallowing the whole fish.' Which I could get away with when holding it as a spiritual practice (as an integrated part of a larger practice), but not if I am entering into the foundations of the religion itself, namely the church institution.

I see here, from your perspectives as ministers, that those once-a-year churchgoers make for a frustratingly awkward and inauthentic Christmas service, which comes across as spiritual materialism. I really get that. Thank you for helping me see this.

And, though I never thought it’d be two ministers who would present compelling reasons not to go to church on Christmas, you have me convinced.

Thanks to you both from the bottom of my heart.

Happy New Year,

Gail
Comment Link Wednesday, 04 January 2012 05:51 posted by Amy Jean Cousins
Hello All,

Gail, I can relate to your journey with Christianity somewhat, although I don't have the deep past with the tradition as you do. (I grew up secular, and was told that people went to church if they couldn't deal with their own lives. Yikes!) I am, however, now in the process of integrating Christian teachings into my spiritual practice.

I'm a bit confused by your last post though. At the beginning you said that you would be one of the 'genuinely grateful' if you attended a sermon given with depth by Chris or Bruce (or an other), but then at the end you say this has convinced you "not to go to church on Christmas" .

If this is your decision that's fine, I just wanted to comment on the fact that I got quite a different message from their words.

What spoke to me, was the ability to make any experience your own -and not to allow any experience or influence of "less depth" affect your experience of "greater depth".

There will always be "fools" in the crowd; the minister may not always say exactly what we expect or hope, but it is up to us to make our own meaning and find our own depth.

If you are deciding to do go your own way without the church -that's great. I guess I just didn't understand the conclusion you came to because I sensed a deep longing to find depth in the church that somehow failed you as a child.

I understand you not wanting to contribute to an "inauthentic Christmas service" but is it better NOT to go? Like I said above, my take on what Bruce and Chris wrote is that it's more about what you make of it, I don't think they'd want you not to go at all.

When you (Gail) said,

"I’ve been 'spitting out the bones before swallowing the whole fish.' Which I could get away with when holding it as a spiritual practice (as an integrated part of a larger practice), but not if I am entering into the foundations of the religion itself, namely the church institution. "

I wonder what you meant by that? I don't think Chris or Bruce were suggesting it was an all or nothing deal. Are you dropping Integral for a fundamentalist approach?

So this brings me to my question. Is a true Christianity -the one that Chris spoke of -asking us to dedicate ourselves completely? And what does that look like? Is attending church once a week, once a month -in practice with other teachings -enough? Can we find depth within a roster of spiritual teachers, or do we need to dedicate ourselves to one teaching -become disciples - to really find depth?

I've always liked the saying, "take what you need and leave the rest" -although partial. It is very true in a moment, when listening to a sermon for example. But you've got to put in the time, make an effort to keep up the practice -recognizing that we can't take it ALL in at once, but slowly, over time, the lessons will become clear.

The idea of picking and choosing to me is important. I think it's okay if we honestly give the tradition full respect and honor the sacredness within that tradition. I do believe we can include several practices within our own personal constellation of belief.

So, I'm wondering, Gail, if you are up for it -if you wouldn't mind expanding on your conclusion here? I know you are very bright with lots of teachings in your roster, and I'd be curious to know why you decided not to go:)

Thanks for the dialogue everyone, I have been intrigued by the conversation.

Bless*
Comment Link Wednesday, 04 January 2012 08:30 posted by Gail Hochachka
Amy,
I'd love talk this over with you more.... Many of your questions about Christianity are good ones, and not ones for me to answer. For the questions that I can answer, I feel this space isn't quite the right one for more of such a personal discussion. I actually tried to leave out the key parts of my own process with this since there's a lot going on for me and I think much of it is a little too personal for this space. The internet is a strange place to be vulnerable... But, I'd be happy to take this off line with you, if you'd like! my email is gail@drishti.ca

I am glad to hear a bit about your own journey and would be keen to hear more.

Blessings,
Gail