Skip to main content

Where was the Republican Party and where were the Republican candidates in the months following Mr. Trump's entry into the campaign on June 16, 2015?  Where were they in July, August, September, October, November, December?  Where was the "courageous," "principled" Sen. Ted Cruz during those months?  Waiting for the Trump phenomenon to fizzle so he could pick up votes from the Trump supporters?  An example of leading from behind?

An appropriate and potentially fruitful way The Banner and Synod could address the current situation would be to engage in a discussion of the consequences of blind partisanship and knee-jerk allegiance to a single political ideology and a world-view informed solely by opinionators from one end of the spectrum and one cable "news" channel. It should be a source of concern for Christians  that so many of their fellow believers rely solely on such a narrow range.  I don't recall any campaign since the 1950's that was so disdainful of fact-checking and so ready to wallow in "truthiness" and escalating divisiveness.

What is to prevent the prevailing ethic of obstructionism, anger, and demonizing the opposition from carrying over into 2017 and beyond, regardless which party prevails in November?

    

Doug, where is your evidence for Republican statements of "opposition" to Trump during the months of June to December?  What led you or others to believe that the Trump phenomenon would "slide away on its own" when poll after poll showed substantial support for his candidacy?

I agree with your observations concerning the Republican campaign being "abhorrent."

Personally I am an independent voter who has supported and voted for candidates from both parties over the years.  Your suggestion that I am "demonizing Republicans" is simply off-base. My GOP friends would find your suggestion amusing.   Please note that my comments addressed partisanship per se, not applied to one particular party  You apparently read GOP into it, and assume that I was referring only to sole reliance on certain sources of information. My comments apply to MSNBC as well as Fox News.  Opinionators approach their subjects in many and varied ways, and neither party has a monopoly on demonization. 

I hope and pray that we can discuss characteristics of the political scene (serious discussion, not "ranting") without resorting to untested assumptions concerning our fellow discussant.

           

 

If any such reformation is to be accomplished, it will have to be initiated by faithful Christians, since most non-Christians appear to be quite content with using the term "Christmas" for a wide variety of secular activities.  That in itself speaks volumes.

 

Thanks for the comment, Michael.  A few years back I reviewed the U.S. Supreme Court dealing with the Pawtucket RI "Creche" case.  The folks who supported the manger scene on public property also emphasized the "value" of bringing people into the city for purposes of shopping, not to mention the "good will" engendered among Christians,i.e. prospective shoppers.  Rev. McKinney makes what I consider to be a compelling case for unblending the two traditions.  Let the people who want to celebrate the non-Christian aspects of "The Season" - this would include Christians who are so inclined -- do so under a new name, e.g. Winter Holiday, culminating in early or mid December.  The Christian Christmas would begin with Advent (thus some calendar overlap) and continue through to Epiphany.

Unfortunately, the word Christmas is so entrenched in secular imagery and music that confusion may be hard to eliminate.  But at least we should be able to offer an alternative to the Fox News-inspired "War on Christmas" by asking Bill O'Reilly which Christmas he's talking about and how serious he is about celebrating the birth of Christ without the commercial trappings.  And how he proposes to do this in a pluralistic society in which all Americans -- not just Christians -- have certain rights.

I am hoping that some productive discussion will help flesh out the details of disentanglement. I think the proposal is interesting enough to get some media attention, don't you?

I don't think any of those who have advanced this idea have in mind an "enforcer."  BTW, Santa Claus has done quite well over the years without an "enforcer,"  and so have many church practices adopted over the centuries.  Unblending is not a matter of taking the fun out of Christmas for non-Christians (as though that were possible, given the weak "influence" of Christians in our culture).  I suspect that many, if not most, Christians are quite content to have "the reason for the season" embedded in the iconography of the North Pole, the jolly old elf in his red suit, and flying reindeer.  If a secularized celebration of the birth of Christ is OK with them, the notion of unblending is not worth consideration. Interesting, though, isn't it, that so many of them get upset when someone prefers the greeting "Happy Holidays" to "Merry Christmas" and the greeting "Blessed Christmas!" seems foreign.  Merriment does seem to be a high priority.

       

You may well be right in regard to the Dec 25 date, Roger.  On the other hand, non-Christians might be just as happy with another date in December, so long as it is recognized as a holiday (with all the benefits of a paid secular holiday).   One would think that a clean separation (sacred/secular) would be welcomed by both Christians and non-Christians.  I fully realize that this is a radical idea -- though I think it has much to recommend it.  BTW, Donald J. Trump has "promised" that if he is elected President, he will make sure that "everybody" is saying Merry Christmas.  How would he accomplish (enforce?) this is anybody's guess, but it plays well among conservative evangelicals whose votes he is courting and who are concerned about increasing secularization, as well as the Fox News talking heads and their annual warnings about the so-called  "War on Christmas."  The latter will probably not be happy until the U.S. becomes a de facto or de more (as distinct from a de jure) theocracy.  Meanwhile, like you,  I expect the status quo to hold.

 

Many thanks for your commentary, Roger.   I appreciate your perspective. I have celebrated The Season in several countries in addition to the U.S.:  The Netherlands (including the separate Sinterklaasdag as a child), Canada, Switzerland, Germany, Austria, and England. My favorite memory is a Christmas Eve worship service in a small 17th century Evangelische chapel in Kandersteg, at the foot of the Blumlisalp in the Bernese Alps (1989). Scripture, meditation, liturgy in 4 languages. Silent Night and other Carols sung in 4 languages --simultaneously.  The only "decorations" greenery,  manger scene, candles, and bells.  Some would consider the setting "austere."  Simple, yes, but hardly what I would call austere. A highly inspirational experience.  Lots of snow everywhere, but no Santa, sleigh, or reindeer.  Springtime greetings to you also, Roger.  Weather here in Cape Coral, FL,is also wonderful.

 

I would be interested in your response to the proposal to reform Christmas by unblending or disentangling the secular and sacred traditions. The proposal is introduced in a related "Issues" post.

This will be my first CRC Synod, as an elder delegate, and I am looking forward to it.  For almost 40 years I lived "beyond the pale" of the CRC, i.e. in areas of the country without a nearby CRC at the time, and haved served on church councils in the Presbyterian (First Pres, the Abraham Lincoln Family Church, in Springfield, IL); United Church of Christ, and United Methodist Church in Missouri. I was active on the regional (conference) level as well as on the global, as a participant in a quadrennial UMC General Conference, so am not unfamiliar with denominational polity and politics. 

As a retiree with more than 30 years as a policy analyst, legislative liaison, governmental relations consultant and association ED experience I am intrigued by group process and how things get done -- or fail to get done -- in organizations, including ecclesiastical bodies.  Since I have missed many of the hot-button debates over the past 40 years, I have read the Agenda carefully, and have asked many questions of fellow CRC's.  I certainly appreciate your writing, Meg, as well as the comments posted.

It's been suggested that my background and experience could bring a "fresh new perspective" to discussions at Synod.  I don't know about that.  I will probably do a lot of rookie listening.  On the other hand, if you, or other "junkies & polity wonks" can offer any helpful insights, I would be very appreciative. 

 

 

   

 

 

.   

 

 

 

 

 

 

As an alternative to the ubiquitous "appoint a study committee" and "appoint a task force," how about commissioning an individual with appropriate credentials to conduct the study?  Study committees and task forces tend to rely on consultation with such individuals in any case, and Synod always has opportunity to review the product.  Cost savings and other efficiencies might result from the alternative.  I am tempted to call for a committee to study this proposal, but will resist the temptation to see "appoint a study committee to study the effectiveness and efficiency of study committees" in the next Agenda for Synod.

Michael -- If an individual with appropriate credentials were commissioned to conduct the study, that person's work product could be reviewed by all councils and classes throughout the denomination.  Easily done with today's technology. That would meet your objective to involve the local congregation, wouldn't it?

We want to hear from you.

Connect to The Network and add your own question, blog, resource, or job.

Add Your Post