27

The Three Keys of Christmas

In a few days it will be Christmas again. If you are active in the occult and Pagan communities you hear a lot of people assuring you that this is “just another solar re-birth holiday”.  I hate the propensity to view ANY myth or diety as “just another” anything. Yes, there are archetypes that get represented over and over again in multiple gods and mythologies. It is good to see the common threads between them and grasp those universal mysteries. I sometimes feel that people forget it is equally important to see the differences between them, and to search the individual characteristics that make each example unique, and which hold their own mysteries.

Whether you are Christian or not, if you live in Europe or America you experience Christmas to some degree. Some resent this, and understandably so. You didn’t land on Christmas, Christmas landed on you! Still and all, you get bombarded with it. Rather than viewing it as just another Solar Gods holiday, I like to take a look at what I see as the mystical keys of Christmas.

Specifically, when it comes to Christmas, there are three things to the story that I think are important.  Three sacred keys to understanding what the story of the nativity is really trying to communicate. They have fuck-all to do with accepting Christ, or proclaiming yourself a Christian, or anything at all about what you believe.

Since I do not have the time to delve supply multiple sources, I will confine myself to one passage from the most holy and sacred Christmas scripture in existence, one that reveals all three of the keys. I am speaking of course of “A Charlie Brown Christmas”*.

 “And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid. And the angel said unto them, ‘Fear not: for behold, I bring unto you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the City of David a Savior, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.’ And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host, praising God, and saying, ‘Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.'”

Here are the three mysteries. The three things about Christmas that I think are important.

1.  “The Glory of the Lord shone round about them”. This is HUGE, and very few people get it. The Glory of the Lord is the Shekhinah. It is not figurative, but a literal light that indicates the lords presence. Until this point in Jewish history, the Glory of the Lord shone in the temple and only in the temple. It was the response to the efforts of the hereditary line of High Priests. Now, it is appearing to lowly shepherds in a field! Christ is not of this priestly line, which is why Paul refers to him as being of the Order of Melchizedek – the Priest King who Abraham paid tribute to in ancient times.

2.  I bring unto you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. The key words here are “all people“. In our age it is easy to lose sight of how territorial religions were at the time. Gods were the god of a particular people – not of everyone. Buddhism was one of the first religions that was for anyone that wanted in – no race, culture, or caste requirement needed – the truth was for anyone or it was not the truth. This statement is saying the same thing. Divinity is too big to be contained in such a small vessel as a race or culture. It is beyond that or it is not divinity.

3.  And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger. This is not just instruction on where to go find the child, it is a SIGN. Divinity manifested in one of the quietest, meekest, and lowest possible manners: as a defenseless child laying in an animals feeding trough. The idea here is that Divinity is not the providence of kings or priests or even the well off. The highest possible level of divinity can manifest in the poorest and meekest.

These three keys are not just for those that call themselves Christian. Christ never drilled people on belief . They are sacred keys of understand a truth. Divinity is accessible not only to a select lineag or special vocation – it is available to everyone, even lowly shepards. Divinity is for all people, not just a single group or race. Divinity manifests from the highest to the lowest in status or stature. Becoming “Christian” is about the least important thing you can take away from it.

Anyway, that’s my Christmas message this year.

Merry Christmas.

 

*Ok, its a quote from the Gospel of Luke, but I always hear it in Linus’s voice.

Click Here to Leave a Comment Below 27 comments
Andrew Watt

It’s a pretty powerful message, that good tidings and great joy are for all people, and that the Glory of the Lord is available to anyone, even out in the wilderness. You’ve run versions of this message before, and it’s still deeply moving.

If anyone ever gives me the ability to preach again in an official pulpit, anytime near Christmas, this will be part of my message.

Reply
Charles

Thanks, Jason. As always, you cut to the chase.

Reply
Al Billings

You forgot the most important thing: the presents.

Reply
M.G.

I think the “it’s just another solar god festival” reaction to Christmas is itself a response to the often heard Orthodox argument that Christianity is unique and totally unlike other religions because its central figure supposedly existed in linear history as opposed to myth. Speaking as a non-Christian, I have to say that at least in translation the New Testament quote you’ve cited reads to me as much more of an endorsement of Christ being “Lord” than a reference to the mysteries you describe.

Reply
    Frater Benedict

    Speaking as a post-Christian, I have to say that your view on what Christian orthodoxy hold is somewhat narrow. The Roman Catholic benedictine monk Odo Casel, who influenced the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) and the present way the Roman Catholic Church celebrates mass, stressed the similarities between Christianity and the Hellenistic mystery religions. He can’t be brushed away as non-influential. The so-called ‘Traditionalist’ Catholics view him as non-orthodox, but, from the point of view of the Vatican, they are themselves non-orthodox when it comes to issues like religious dialogue, freedom of religion and ecumenism, so we have to ask: Who’s definition of ortodoxy are we discussing?

    The Anglican writer C.S. Lewis, who hardly can be dismissed as a heterodox fringe figure, stressed the continuity between pre-Christian religions and Christianity. In his thought, myth wasn’t opposed to the stories alleged to be historical events in the gospels commonly held to be canonical, but prefigurements of the Christ events Lewis viewed as historical.

    We don’t have to limit ourselves to 20th century orthodox writers: Already in the second and third centuries Clement of Alexandria used pre-Christian philosophy in his apologetics for Christianity, and in the fourth century Lactantius compared God the Father with the Greek deity Aither, and Christ to the Phanes Protogonos of Greek mythology.

    Reply
      M.G.

      I actually had C.S. Lewis in mind when I described the Orthodox argument that Christianity is unique and unlike other religions because its central figure existed in linear history and not ‘just’ myth. I think that when Christian believers assert that their narratives are more real or more truly divine than someone else’s, the “it’s just another solar god” line is understandable. That said, if any Orthodox Christians assert that pagan gods are as real and divine as their Trinity, I would certainly consider that genuinely ecumenical and praiseworthy.

      Reply
        Frater Benedict

        At other times, and in other milieus, I have repeated again and again that ‘neither Monotheism nor Polytheism exist’ – more about that another time.

        Your disagreement with Lewis is understandable if a prefigurement isn’t ‘real’ (The dialogue between you and me is, to a certain degree, obstructed by the fact that none of us has explained what we mean by the word ‘reality’: I suppose that none of us mean that neither beliefs nor deities nor the Ultimate Reality are ‘real’ in the same way as a chair or a tree is ‘real’).

        The most common opinion among Christians is that ‘polytheistic’ deities doesn’t exist (The roots of this opinion is found in 1Cor. 8.4), while the Evangelical-Charismatic wing regard ‘polytheistic’ deities as real but evil (The roots of that opinion is found in 1Cor. 10.20).

        This description of the situation is immediately problematised, when we take the belief in angels in consideration. In Greek-speaking Second Temple Judaism and in early Christianity the ‘gods’ in Psalms 138.1 (LXX 137.1) were identified as angels. The belief in angels is common within orthodox Christanity: Benevolent deities can then be said to have survived under the label ‘angel’, and malevolent deities under the label ‘fallen angel’ (the later group a parallel to the imprisoned Titans and Giants of Greek mythology). In most forms of Christian theology angels does not share the divine nature of the Holy Trinity, being of other levels of spiritual nature, but, if egality between spiritual entities is the mark of Paganism, Greek religion couldn’t have been Pagan: Satyrs and nymphs were not held equal to Zeus.

        The most obvious Pagan deity surviving within Christianity is the Form of Goodness (from the writings of Plato) and the First Cause (from the writings of Aristotle). Eastern Orthodox Christians, Roman Catholics, Anglicans and Lutherans assert these as as real and divine as the Holy Trinity, by the simple reason that they are all held to be one and the same entity. A similar view is found in a poem by the Roman Catholic poet Alexander Pope:

        ‘Father of all! in every age,
        In every clime adored,
        By saint, by savage, and by sage,
        Jehovah, Jove, or Lord!’

        Reply
          M.G.

          This is actually an interesting discussion, Frater Benedict, and I’d like to thank you for your thoughtful responses. In terms of Christian views of Paganism (and to the extent that it matters, I don’t identify as Pagan), I would say that interpretations of polytheistic deities as being evil or non-existent in turn feed dismissive attacks on Christian narratives. Moving a bit outside the original topic of conversation, since you’ve given examples of Orthodox believers who do see at least certain Pagan divinities as co-equal to the Christian Trinity, is there any unified stance among that group as to whether formal adherance to Chrisitan modes of belief and worship are either necessary or intrinsicially useful for spiritual progress, however that is defined?

          Reply
Ashen Chassan

Very well stated my friend 🙂

Reply
Alexandr Arroyo

*wipes tears.* Thank you for this piece.

Reply
Anna Greenflame

Fan-f–king-tastic article. Sharing.

Reply
David Koffer

Thank you for this. I get a little grinchy around Christmas, and it’s things like this that help me break out and remember the bigger picture.

Reply
Christopher Orapello

Great piece Jason! I will be sharing this for sure.

Reply
Tracy

Brilliant! A message of reason and truth for all.

Merry Christmas!

Reply
Sara

I enjoyed this, but I think hereditary/tribal Divinity is more Divine than you give it credit for.

Reply
Anne

Thank you, Jason. I do really get tired of hearing how Christ doesn’t matter. Unless you grew up in an indigenous tribe, free from “The Fall”, in other words; if you grew up in civilization, Christ matters. He is perhaps not the be-all, end-all that Jerry Falwell types would try to convince you of, but yes, if you grew up in a broken, enslaved, profit-seeking, commercial, empire-infested world, you might really need some parables of Jesus, and a Sermon on the Mount never hurt anybody. Thanks for pointing out the aspects of Grace: the visitation of the Glory of the Lord to common shepherds (not priests guarding and feeding the Holy of Holies), that the teachings of Christ are for all peoples, not just Levite priests so obsessed with purity and cleanliness that they won’t help wounded beggars on the road; that if you’re looking for this sign of Grace you’d better go looking in the humblest and most deserted places – places where those who can’t find a room in the inn end up (can you say homeless shelters? homes for pregnant teenagers?). The message of Christ is compassion and equality. Thanks, and Merry Christmas!

Reply
    Frater Benedict

    But what is the difference – if any – between ‘the message of Christ’ and the message of the Buddhists and Stoics? ‘Compassion’ (metta) is central in Buddhism, and the Stoics taught ‘equality’. The Enlightenment values which formed the better characteristics (there are of course lot of worse characteristics) of the modern western societies were in many regards a sort of Neo-Stoicism.

    If there isn’t a significant difference (at least not in the moral teaching alleged to Jesus of Nazareth in the gospels commonly held canonical) is it then the message of Christ which is needed? Isn’t it, rather, a decent moral stance, common to many religious and philosophical currents, and probably founded on a natural morality knowable by conscience?

    As I read Jason’s post, the universal significance of Christmas isn’t about morality. It is about experience of the Divine for everyone.

    Reply
Frater Benedict

I don’t find any reply button after M.C:s latest post, so I hope that M.C. will find this reply.

As I wrote in my last reply, the Form of Goodness and the First Cause are regarded as the same deity as the Holy Trinity. I am not sure if the word ‘co-equal’ express this identity clearly. The concept of ‘natural’ knowledge about God (Natural Theology) is widespread in the denominations mentioned by me in a former reply. A, from a historical viewpoint, relatively recent document about this is the Roman Catholic declaration Nostra Aetate (1965).

Concerning the potential causes of dismissive attacks, I share your worry.

The theology of the Roman-Catholic Church is interesting on this point. On the one hand it teaches that baptismal grace is necessary for salvation, but on the other hand it teaches that baptismal grace sometimes is given by other means than the sacramental baptism in water. Believers who prepare for baptism, but die the death of martyrs before baptism, are considered to have received ‘baptismum sanguinis’: The baptism in blood. Persons who have the intention of becoming baptised, but die before baptism, are considered to have received ‘baptismum flaminis’: The baptism of desire.

During the last century, there has been a lot of reflection in the Roman Catholic Church over the nature of intention or desire. Jesuit Karl Rahner raised the possibility that this desire to receive salvation in many cases might be unconscious and unspoken. Thus the official encyclica ‘Lumen gentium’ says:

‘The non-Christian may not be blamed for his ignorance of Christ and his Church; salvation is open to him also, if he seeks God sincerely and if he follows the commands of his conscience, for through this means the Holy Ghost acts upon all men; this divine action is not confined within the limited boundaries of the visible Church.’

Using your way of expression, this view means that Christian modes of belief and worship are viewed as intrinsicially useful for spiritual progress, but that God, in the Christian sense, in an non-ordinary way, will give the same grace to non-Christians who are unconsciously well disposed to receive that grace.

Unlike the case of the Roman Catholic church, Eastern Orthodox churches, Anglican-Episcopal churches and Lutheran churches have not issued any official statements about this subject. Something similar to the official Roman Catholic view (but without the Papal ecclesiology) may be found among some members of these other churches, but so will the opposite view.

It is my general impression that Evangelical-Charismatic denominations, as a rule, hold a much more negative view on non-Christians than the aforementioned denominations, but even this generalisation has a few rare exceptions: Rather recently, Evangelicals Robert Holmes Bell Jr. and Brian McLaren has defended the theory of universal salvation.

Reply
zGmX6b

101491 646790I ought to admit that this really is 1 wonderful insight. It surely gives a company the opportunity to get in on the ground floor and genuinely take part in creating something particular and tailored to their needs. 398464

Reply
ihair-cutstyles

Super-Duper blog! I am loving it!! Will be back later to read some more. I am taking your feeds also

Reply
jual kaos badminton

Thanks so much for giving everyone an extremely terrific opportunity to read from this blog. It is often so fantastic and full of amusement for me personally and my office colleagues to visit your site not less than thrice in 7 days to read the latest guides you have. And of course, I’m always astounded considering the exceptional advice served by you. Selected 1 ideas in this posting are rather the simplest we have ever had.

Reply
content

I like this weblog so significantly, saved to my bookmarks .

Reply
shazino.pl

Safest husband toasts, or toasts. ‘re brought to you you most likely within the wedding party and are nonetheless required to prove enjoyable, humorous and as properly as useful of course. very best man speech jokes

Reply
Pinoy Tv Serial

You should participate in a contest for among the most effective blogs on the internet. I will suggest this web site!

Reply

Leave a Reply: