How Unitarians and Universalists Saved Christmas
A sermon delivered at the Unitarian Universalist Congregation (Blacksburg, VA), December 11, 2005,
by the Reverend Christine Brownlie.
When
I was in the fourth grade, I led a revolt over the celebration of the
winter holidays in my school. No, this was not a battle over the
name given to the decorated evergreen tree that stood outside the
principal’s office. It was a Christmas tree, but our holiday
party didn’t include more than a passing nod to Christmas.
Because
the majority of the students in my school were Jewish, our
winter holiday party focused on the story and customs of Hanukah.
We would hear the story of the valiant Maccabees and their guerrilla
war against the wicked Seleucid governor, Antiochus Epiphanes, who
demanded that the Jews turn away from their god and take up the
worship and customs of the gentiles. We learned the dreidel song and
watched as a classmate kindled the candles of the menorah.
All
of this was fine with me. But I thought we should also learn about
Christmas. So I persuaded a couple of my Sunday school friends to
join me, and we paid a call to our rather astonished principal, Mrs.
Harm. She agreed that we could make a presentation on Christmas at
our fourth grade party and that our mothers could supply appropriate
treats if they were willing. This worked out so well that the
following year the PTA suggested that all classrooms have inclusive
holiday parties. That was my first battle for
Christmas.
Last
week I entered the latest battle over Christmas with a
letter to the Roanoke Times.
This time the issue had to do with what to call the decorated tree
that stands in the town park or the local department store. In my
letter I expressed my bewilderment over this issue: asking why
Christians were defending the pagan tradition of a decorated tree
that had been added to a re-framed pagan holiday. What’s more,
I have a hard time with the idea that the merchants and marketing folks should be
the public keepers of the “true spirit” of the holidays.
In
all the heat and smoke of the current brouhaha, we have forgotten
that the battles over Christmas have been going on for centuries.
The leaders of the Christian Church were divided over this
celebration for a very long time. Way back in the 1600s, Oliver
Cromwell of England and John Calvin, the governor of Geneva
Switzerland, outlawed Christmas celebrations. Other reformation
leaders didn’t go that far, but they condemned the holiday from
their pulpits because of the gluttony, drunkenness, and other sins
that were rapidly becoming the essence of the day.
Their
negative view of Christmas was shared in certain regions of our
country as well. In 1659, the General Court of Massachusetts enacted
a law making any observance other than a church service on December
25 a punishable offense. Preacher Cotton Mather warned that those
who celebrated Christmas did so at their own peril. This day, he
said, should be one of fasting and repentance. Hanging a simple
wreath on the door could be cause for a hefty fine. No doubt, a
few brave souls kept their accustomed Christmas celebrations, but it
was behind shuttered windows and locked doors. No wonder that Santa
had to enter the house through the chimney!
Those who lived in the Southern
and Mid-Atlantic colonies ignored the objections and prohibitions of
the Puritans. They kept Christmas not as a day of reverence, but as
a day of fun. The Southern tobacco and cotton growers danced and
drank and partied. They enjoyed the celebration of “misrule.”
Men and women wore each other’s clothing. Servants became
masters for a day and ruled over their “betters.”
Historic records show that the result of all this hilarity was a rise
in out-of wedlock pregnancy, hasty marriages, and an annual baby
boom in September and October — nine months after Christmas.
These
regional and religious differences mean that there was no such thing
as a traditional American Christmas. People kept the traditions of
their country of origin or followed the teachings of their church.
For many years, the working class people saw Christmas as just
another day of drudgery and hard work. The factories, shops, and
other businesses were open as usual. Most people didn’t have
the time or inclination to pay much attention to the holiday.
But
within a very few years, that would change. In the rapidly growing
cities of America it was the lowly newsboys who began some
interesting new customs to mark the celebration of Jesus’
birth. Some of the boys began to solicit Christmas tips from their
customers, taking their cue from the traditional begging by children
that was customary in England They quickly realized that there was
money to be had on this holiday and some enterprising young men
formed gangs known as “Antiks.” They would roam the
streets, singing and carrying on, stopping now and then to invade the
homes of wealthier citizens. Once inside, they demanded money in
exchange for entertainment — usually a short and somewhat bawdy
skit.
If
the Antics were disappointed in their unwilling host’s
offerings of money, drink, and food, they would express
their displeasure by breaking the windows, pulling the latches and
hinges off the doors, or frightening the children and the ladies of
the household. If rival gangs met on the street, a bloody fight
would break out, endangering anyone who had the misfortune of getting
caught up in the melee. Christmas was turning into a dangerous and
destructive free-for-all.
Once
again, clergymen and public officials complained about the degenerate
tone of the holiday and tried to suppress — or at least tone
down — the rowdiness associated with Christmas. Their
efforts met with little success and once more there was talk of
banning the holiday. This time, a few clergymen and other respectable citizens stood up
for a new improved Christmas, and saved the day.
It’s
ironic that the civic and religions leaders who took up the banner of
Christmas were the theological descendants of the anti-Christmas
Puritans and Pilgrims. You might be very surprised to learn that
some of these men and women who came to the defense of the holiday
were our pwn Universalist and Unitarian forbearers. Their approach
civilized and reframed the celebration of Jesus’ birth and
connected important virtues to pagan symbols that were commonly
observed.
The
Universalists of New England were among those who had always
celebrated the holiday. Many Universalists lived in rural areas or
small fishing communities. They felt a close connection with forces
of nature and with the simple story of a holy child born in a stable.
Decorations from nature were enjoyed for their earthly beauty, and a
special meal was a welcome treat in the bitter New England winter at
at time when life was slow and drab.
The
busy city of Boston was home to a large and influential community of
Universalists. This congregation took the lead and in 1789 held the
first Christmas Day service in the city. Over the next few years,
this group continued to be a strong and vocal advocate for a more
respectable and family oriented celebration of Christmas.
The
Unitarians, a more prosperous and perhaps influential group, joined
the Universalists in the campaign for Christmas. This was not
because Unitarians believed that December 25th was Jesus’
actual birthday, nor did they believe that Jesus was a divine being
or God Incarnate. They saw Jesus as a unique and important teacher
whose birth should be honored, but there was much more that motivated
their interest in the holiday.
The Unitarians were very
attracted to the new “cult of domesticity” that was a
hot new trend of the time. This new concept of family emphasized the
importance of tender, intimate feelings between husband and wife,
between parent and child, and among siblings. This concept
encouraged the careful nurturing of children’s minds and
spirits. Discipline was to be instructive, not harsh, The home was
seen as a sanctuary from the stress and demands of commerce.
The Unitarian effort to save, or
perhaps reclaim Christmas was two-fold: The first effort was to
heighten the religious overtones of the day by holding religious
services on Christmas day. The second was to urge the banks, shops,
other businesses, and even schools to close for the day —
something that had never been done before — so that the family
could spend the day together.
Today
this “day off” is universal, and we feel sorry for those
who have to work on Christmas day because of the nature of their
work. But in the mid 1800s when this idea was first introduced, it
was a point of controversy. Some argued that a day off was likely
to become a day of drinking and idleness — back to the bad old
days. The clergy and others said that was all the more reason to
close the bars, open the churches, and remind people of the “reason
for the season.”
The
effort to get people to attend church services floundered after a
couple of years. I guess like many of us, they good people of Boston
preferred to stay home and have a leisurely morning with the family.
The idea of shifting Christmas celebrations out of the street and
into the home was more successful. But even the best of ideas can
bring about unexpected consequences.
The
focus on family and the exchange of gifts was blamed for increasing
the greediness of the children who began to demand the expensive
gifts for the holiday In his book, The Battle for Christmas,
Stephan Nissenbaum draws on the letters of three generation of women
of the Sedgewich family. This was a well-to-do Unitarian clan
living in Massachusetts in the middle and late 1800’s. In
their letters to friends and distant relative, the women lamented the
difficulties of finding just the right gift, of the toys that were
quickly broken, the frustration of gifts lost in the mail, and the
childish greed inspired by too many gifts.
Just a few years later, a letter
printed in a Boston Unitarian magazine warned parents that merchants
were playing on the selfishness of children and the poor judgment of
their parents. Others complained that the merchants were using the
sentimentality of Christmas to encourage people to spend too much
money. The familiar lament was that Christmas was becoming too
commercial! Once again, Unitarians tried to rescue Christmas —
this time with an unlikely solution: the Christmas tree.
For
me, and perhaps for many of you, the Christmas tree is a symbol of
the materialism and greed that plagues the Christmas celebration of
our day. But to the Unitarians of the pre-Civil War era, the
Christmas tree represented just the opposite. It embodied the charm
of the home-produced holiday and the feeling of magic that came from
the legends and stories of Santa Claus and the simple presents he
brought for the children.
Charles
Follen, a Unitarian minister and professor of German, is credited
with bringing the custom of the decorated and lighted Christmas tree
to New England. Follen actually premiered his tree on New Year’s
Day, so that his great friend Harriet Martineau, a British Unitarian
who was traveling in this country , could be present for the
unveiling of the family’s first tree and write about the
occasion. Her charming account of this novel addition to the Follen
family Christmas was included in her book about her visit to America.
The book was very popular and within a very few years, the Christmas
trees became an integral part of the American holiday.
Gifts for the children were hung
on the tree by their parents. Santa was not yet part of the celebration. These were to be simple items, often
hand-made. Children were encouraged to make special gifts for
their parents and siblings. The idea behind this was that through
the efforts required to make gifts for parents and other family
members, a child’s inborn goodness and generosity would be
awakened and nurtured.
An
example of this philosophy in action can be found in the first
chapter of Louisa May Alcott’s Little Women. Raised as
a Unitiarian, she depicts a carefully constructed example of the
progressive Unitarian philosophies of family life. The celebration
of Christmas includes modest gifts (Bibles) and there is an
opportunity to practice of charity and kindness when the heroines of
the story carry their special breakfast feast to a poor neighbor’s
family. While the girls expressed disappointment at giving up their much anticipated morning repast, the conversation that follows assures the reader that the
lesson of love was not lost.
Did
the Unitarians really save Christmas from excess and selfishness and
the forces of commerce? It certainly doesn’t seem that they
did. The battle for Christmas has never ended, and it’s my
opinion that the current skirmish is silly. My favorite letter to
the editor on this topic suggested that if we’re going to take
back Christmas, it should be over concerns for the needs of the
poorest citizens in our community, not the moniker used for the
traditional tree.
As
I read that letter, it occurred to me that this would be a great
opportunity to take back Christmas from the greed and excess that has
become the hallmark of the American Christmas. How could we renew
the focus on Jesus’ teachings of care for the poor, or peace
within families and between neighbors — and enemies? How do we
act on his warnings about wealth and possessions? I know that many of
you face the battle for Christmas in your own homes. I hope you find
comfort in these words from an unknown source that I’ve
adapted and expanded.
Blessed are the parents who know
that Christmas is not found in the toy department, the catalogs, or
the K-Bee website.
Blessed are the parents who turn
off the television and the video games and, despite the busyness of
the season, give their children some of their precious time for
stories and songs and cookie baking.
Blessed are the parents who teach
their children to while toys break or grow to be BOOOORING, shared
love, laughter bring joy for years
Blessed are they who balance
decorating and parties and shopping with times of reflection on the
message of the babe grown to manhood, who vow to bring that message
of peace, for justice, and lives unfettered by hatred and greet to
their own lives, and to the world.
May they become like little
children and hearing that old sweet song of love and hope once again
—and rejoice!
May
it be so!
Copyright 2005, Helen
Christine Brownlie; Commercial duplication prohibited without permission of the author
UUC Home Page
Reverend Brownlie
Home Page
|