Ministry

December 20, 2009

Santa Claus and Other Authority Figures Reverend Don Vaughn-Foerster

“Rudolph, the Red Nosed Reindeer” has always bothered me.  The song is based on a physical handicap – a red nose – that led to social oppression.  The other reindeer made fun of him and ostracized him (as I heard Gene Autry tell it in my youth.)  However, Santa Claus changed the situation by giving Rudolph a higher status.  Santa saw a handicap that could be made functional.

            I have always been happy that things turned out well for Rudolph, but I also have been a bit bemused by the implications of Santa’s interference in the reindeer’s interpersonal relations.  On their own, the other reindeer were unable to see the merits of Rudolph of the Red Nose.  It took the authority of the North Pole CEO to turn the situation around. 

            This raises questions about Santa’s motivations.  Did he see Rudolph’s red nose as a true gift or did he see it as something that would merely serve his own organizational purposes?  Did Santa really need a signal light?  Had the FAA been after him?  Or, was Santa trying to solve other negative dynamics in reindeer-dom by putting the other reindeer in their places by showing preference to Rudolph?  Had Dasher and Dancer been competing for the lead?  Had Prancer been stepping on Vixen’s hooves and Vixen, in return, been acting vixen-ish toward Prancer?  Had Comet singed Cupid with his tail?  Had Cupid shot an arrow at Comet?  Was Donder making too much noise?  Was Blitzen being too personally striking? 

            Was Santa trying to put them all in their places, showing preference by going outside the company for a leader (a lead-deer)?  If he was, it worked.  And, Santa can be given high marks for personnel management.  He sure knew how to use his authority.  But, what does that have to say about him as a kindly little elf? 

            Now, all I’ve said is just in fun, but it does raise the issue of authority and its effect on us – especially at this time of year.  Santa’s use of Rudolph is just another pointer toward a serious tension between spontaneity and authority in this holiday season.  The question arises not just who controls Rudolph but who is to control this season.  How is this season to be celebrated and on whose authority? 

            Every year we see conflicting authorities insisting that their approach to this time of winter festivities is the approach everyone should follow.  The Church sees Christmas as a holy day – the celebration of the birthday of Jesus – and calls for a time of spiritual renewal.  Pious preachers want to use it as a time to proclaim the Gospel.  One of their favorite slogans is “Put Christ back in Christmas.” 

            On the other hand, society in general approaches this season as a festival, a relief from routine – in many ways as a time to “kick over the traces.”  This is a time to focus on family, on children, on friends – a time to use whatever glitter and glitz makes us feel good or adds to the festivities. 

            The commercial sector of society, especially, likes it as a chance to enhance the economy – a time to spend a lot, to share the wealth, to give business a boost.  It’s hard to know who wants to have the most control over our holiday behavior – the Church or Society.  It’s hard to know whether we should “O Come, All Ye Faithful” or single-mindedly “Deck the Halls!” 

            This is hard to figure out because both the Church and Society have co-opted the winter festival.  For instance, the history of the evolution of December 25 into Christmas Day is quite revealing.  Up to the time of the Emperor Constantine, the celebration of Jesus’ birth was January 6, now the date of Epiphany.  In Roman times, other earlier celebrations interfered with this January celebration.  The Saturnalia, with its merrymaking and exchange of gifts, was on December 17.  And, note this well, the birthday celebration of the Iranian mystery god, Mithra, the Sun of Righteousness, was December 25.  Then, January 1 was the Roman New Year, a time when houses were decorated with greenery and lights and gifts were given to children and to the poor. 

            The early Church Fathers decided that, “If you can’t lick ‘em, join ‘em,” and so, in the 4^th century – after Christianity became the state religion – they (with no little help from Emperor Constantine himself) tried to combine all of these celebrations into one and they took over December 25 as the time for the birthday mass of the Christ.  Thus, we have Christ-mass and not the Mithra-mess the church had been fighting. 

            Then, as the Church moved north into Gaul, Central Europe, and Britain, other local pagan practices were added to the celebration.  Food, good fellowship, the Yule log, Yule cakes, fir trees, fires, candles – all pagan symbols were co-opted into the Christian celebration. 

            You know, where the historic winter celebration is concerned, it’s hard to “Put Christ back in Christmas.”  Jesus was never completely or exclusively put in it in the first place.  The reality is that Jesus was a Johnny-come-lately to the winter celebration.  It all started without him.  Even so, representatives of the Church continue to inveigh against “non-Christian” practices, especially on Christmas, oblivious to the fact that the earliest Christians had chosen other dates for their commemoration of Jesus’ birth.  So, early on we had the arbitrary use of authority to co-opt a non-Christian date and non-Christian practices into the Christian celebration and, nowadays, we have arbitrary use of authority to exclude non-Christian practices that some believers have decided don’t fit. 

            That’s about the Church.  Now, let’s consider what Society has done to co-opt the celebration after the Church got its hands on it.  And, here, the history of St. Nicholas’ evolution into Santa Claus is revealing.  Actually, Santa Claus as a name and a concept is the product of a lisping Dutchman and a Nasty cartoon.  The name “Santa Claus” is from “Sinter Klaas”, Holland’s modified version of St. Nicholas.  When Dutch settlers came to America, they brought Sinter Klaas with them.  Sinter Klaas and England’s Father Christmas became fused together.  Clement Moore’s poem, “The Night Before Christmas”, consolidated into one figure the legends surrounding both figures. 

            Our image of this now “chubby and plump” … jolly old elf” was given to us by a Thomas Nast cartoon in 1850.  By the Way, Nast is the one who gave us the word “nasty” because of the unkindness of his depiction of public figures – except Santa Claus.  Nowadays, though, it’s the Coca Cola adaptation of Santa that most predominates. 

            Remember now that St. Nicholas is the root figure of all this Santa Claus stuff.  St. Nicholas was a popular and kindly 4^th century bishop who was imprisoned by Diocletian but freed by Constantine after Nicholas (it was said) appeared in a dream to Constantine and urged him to free three Christian army officers.  Nicholas was a popular and influential church leader.  He gave gifts to the poor and sweets to children.  He was a delegate to the Council of Nicaea in 325 C.E.  December 5 was his birthday and his feast day and its “eve” became the occasion of gift giving, especially to children.  He became the patron saint of Greece and Russia, of charitable guilds, children, and sailors.  Actually, he is the most “patronizing” of saints.  The Internet document about him that I located lists over 100 groups for whom Nicholas is the patron saint.  These groups range from clergy, to lawyers, to poets, to the paupers and pawnbrokers that excessive celebration tends to produce.  His feast day was moved to December 25 by the church – a not insignificant confusion of a church leader with the religion’s founder. 

            Over the years St. Nicholas has been secularized into Father Christmas in Germany and England, Sinter Klaas in Holland, and Santa Claus, the patron saint of Christmas, in the U.S. and England.  Nowadays, he is a religious figure degenerated into a magical, oversized secular elf, his historical religious significance drained away.  But, he has a new authority over children and reindeer.  He dispenses gifts according to deservingness.  He keeps his “naughty and nice” list and “checks it twice!”  He determines who makes starting line-up on his reindeer team. 

            Knowing all this about Santa Claus is sure to make a devout Christian uneasy.  I can understand the plaintive cry, “Put Christ back in Christmas!”  It’s just that Christ was not there in the first place.  Nor was December 25th the original Christ-mass. 

            We, Unitarian Universalists, get especially confused by all this.  Many of us are trying to “come out” of traditional religion and have been so pressed by traditional religious practices that we may hate them and yet not be able to shake them.  But also, Society’s superficialization is worrisome, too.  Especially the “spend, spend, spend” theme; and the “Love everybody, even Scrooge!” theme.  It’s bad enough that the Church should co-opt the festival and that Society should co-opt “St. Nick” but it’s really hard to see Business Interests co-opt it all!! – especially, by co-opting the spiritual intent: the crèche in the center of the window display.  And, even more especially, it’s hard to see the “Messiah of Peace, Justice, and Righteousness” (referred to in the ninth chapter of his book by the Prophet Isaiah) become a happy merchant standing at the cash register exclaiming, “I say! A Profit!!”  Somehow, we want something more authentic, more supportive of our own integrity. 

            So, how are we to deal with this mess?  this Christ-mess?  I think first we need to recognize what is going on.  We need to note that Santa Claus (a.k.a. St. Nicholas) is fun, but may not be as benign as we think.  Santa Claus in some ways is a subtle reinforcement for behavioral control – an overseer of a system of rewards and punishments.  Despite the fun-avoidance syndrome of the Puritans, Santa Claus is a Puritan in disguise, in the legend dispensing rewards only to the deserving.  St. Nicholas was as political as he was religious.  He had the power of the emperor behind him and I suspect he voted for the Trinity at the Council of Nicaea -- another reason for religious liberals to be leary of him. 

            Next, we need to recognize that traditional Christianity’s call on us for “theological correctness” misses the spirit of the season.  The spirit of the season (the spirit the Church has tried to co-opt) is the celebration of warmth, of long-lasting life, of family and friendship and charitableness.  If the Church wants to be part of this it should seriously return to Isaiah’s proclamation of the birth of justice and peace as the main reason for the Messiah in the first place. 

            After we recognize the existence of these pressures to “toe-the-line”, then, let’s say to ourselves: “No thanks!  I’m going to enjoy the season for what it’s for!!  I need a festival now!  The world needs a festival now!  I shall be festive!! And, I shall use all festive tools available according to my own understanding of them and according to my own tastes.  This means I can tell whatever stories, sing whatever songs, and put out whatever decorations give me joy enough to share with others without anxiety over whether I am doing these things according to the dictates of some coercive religious, social, or commercial authority .  The ages have bequeathed all these things to me and they are mine to use as I will (or not) and this is the season to use them.” After all, there is a “reason for the season.”   Our senses tell us the year is rounding to an end; our bodies tell us it’s time for rejuvenation; our spirits tell us there is more magic to life than the institutions of our world contain.  And, in this magical turn of seasons, now is the time to give attention to these needs. 

            To me this means that the coerciveness of the Preacher, the Merchant, and the Saint (be he Nicholas or Claus) is not to be admitted into our celebration.  Rather, theological correctness, profit-making, and behavior control are to be replaced by care for one another, by goodwill, joy, healing, and, it is to be hoped, by peace and justice in our dealings.  And, on a deeper level, this season is to prove in some measure that Isaiah and Jesus were truly on to something – that life does triumph over death, light over darkness, love over hate.  In terms of the theater, it is to prove that the comedy of the carnival of Christmas triumphs over the tragedy of strife and confusion that we have superimposed over Christmas -- and over life.