Bury Christmas Beneath the Willow

Chronicles ^ | 12/16/05 | Aaron Wolf

[Thorin]

Reports in the national press that some modern megachurches are “closing” on Christmas in order to encourage families to “have a more personal experience on that day” have shocked many traditional Christians. The Chicago Tribune first reported this phenomenon on December 6, in an article about the godfather of megachurches, Willow Creek. Other articles followed, in USA Today and other papers, chronicling the trend throughout the United States.

This is nothing new for Willow Creek, and the WillowCreeking of America is evidenced by the spread of this trend. Many, many churches, including Rockford’s Heartland Community Church (which recently purchased Colonial Village Mall and is planning on worshiping in the former J.C. Penney’s) belong to the Willow Creek Association, which they pay to give them marching orders every week, in order to remain “relevant.” Heartland doesn’t even have a live sermon: They simply pipe in the video feed from Willow.

All of this begs the larger question, “Why DO we need to go to church on Christmas.” Traditionalists often wonder why we need to ask in the first place, as church has always been a part of their experience of the Feast of the Nativity. However, for those who come from denominations that de-emphasize sacraments (or eliminate them altogether) the question remains. After all, can’t I read my Bible, pray, and sing Christmas carols at home? In my piece “A Tender, Unitarian Christmas,” I wrote the following:

What distinguishes evangelicalism from Unitarianism is an intellectual commitment to what came to be known as the “fundamentals” in the early 20th century. Evangelicals retain a belief in the transcendent, supernatural characteristics of orthodox Christianity: the Virgin Birth of Christ, His substitutionary atonement for the sins of the world, His resurrection from the dead, and even His Incarnation in the womb of the Virgin Mary. These core commitments cause evangelicals to follow the Puritans in emphasizing a dramatic, supernaturally enabled and inspired conversion experience. But for those already converted, the pursuit of individual piety is much the same as the liberals’—devoid of Sacraments and the “working out of salvation” that accompanies them. Since salvation comes through the instant conversion of the mind and heart, the Incarnation plays little part in the process of creating or maintaining faith and its goal, the forgiveness of sins. What we can get at church that we can’t get at home is this: the true Body and Blood of Christ, given and shed for you for the forgiveness of sins. Christmas is about the Incarnation and Holy Birth of the Only Begotten Son of God. What is more incarnational than the gift of the Flesh and Blood of the Lamb of God? And what sanctifies my family’s experience around the table and the Christmas tree more than a trip to a faithful church to receive the very grace that the Babe of the Manger has come to give?

The new sacraments—conduits of grace—in the Age of Willow are the yuppie pastor, the Praise Team, and the Sacred Video Projector. But their superfluous nature is manifest in that even they can be set aside in place of “family time” around the tree. These things are important, but they cannot give what the enfleshed Savior can—which is the whole point of Christmas to begin with.

[Kolokotronis]

"Did Nestorianism depend on literacy?"

I sincerely doubt it! :) From what I've seen, literacy seems to have very little to do with any heresy, at least among "nominal" Christians, which, unfortunately, make up the majority in this country.

[fzx12345]

You are forgetting the Abecedarians, a 16th Century Anabaptist sect, who claiming that as the Holy Spirit alone passed all knowledge to humanity, literacy was sinful.

[redgolum]

Been reading a bit about the Nestorians, and find it kind of funny that Nestor himself probably wasn't one. It was those who claimed to follow him after he went into exile at a monastery that took his writing to the logical extreme. Or rather, they only had a superficial understanding of what he was saying. After Chalcedon, Nesotor felt vindicated in that the formula there worked out was what he was trying to say. Unfortunately for him, neither his supporters or his opponents understood that (which begs the question if he wasn't just saying he agreed to Chalcadon to try to get out of trouble).

In fact, one author that I am reading suggested that was the real issue that the ecclessial authorities were concerned about. That nominal Christians would just wander into a Nestorian heresy without actually thinking that much about it.

[Kolokotronis]

"Been reading a bit about the Nestorians, and find it kind of funny that Nestor himself probably wasn't one."

The same has been said about Pelagius. With Nestorius, however, it is a fact that he argued against the title of Theotokos for for the Virgin Mary, asserting that she should be called the Christotokos, which of course is pretty much definitional of the heresy itself.

[redgolum]

With Nestorius, however, it is a fact that he argued against the title of Theotokos for for the Virgin Mary, asserting that she should be called the Christotokos, which of course is pretty much definitional of the heresy itself.

Which did spark the whole debate, you are correct. I think Harold Brown (the author of the book) was saying that while he did coin the term Christotokos, he did not want to separate the Divine and Human natures of Christ into two separate persons. But from this distance of time, it is hard to say for sure if Nestor's later statements were mearly trying to "make up" or not.

[Charles Henrickson]

Aaron D. Wolf—Associate Editor of Chronicles and
Webmaster; M.A. in Christian Thought and Church
History from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

From what I know of him, Aaron Wolf is a sharp guy, and a good guy. He knows his stuff. I don't think that he is a "deacon" in the sense of a full-time church worker. I know and trust Wolf's pastor and the congregation he belongs to. I've met Wolf and heard him speak in person.

Just from glancing at a couple of comments here, I think some of the confusion might be over the use of the word, "Evangelical." It really has a couple of uses. More common today is to use it to refer to "American Evangelicals," who are not sacramental in the way that Lutherans are. The older and more historic use of "Evangelical," though, is in reference precisely to Lutherans, who were called Evangelisch early on in the Reformation, because of their emphasis on the Gospel..

[Arrowhead1952]

Great observation Tony. Our "non mega" LCMS Church will have a Christmas Eve, Christmas morning and evening service. I'll probably be at all three.

[Mr. Lucky]

The Christmas day service, being the last service of the tax year, should give these mega-churches sufficient pecuniary reason to stay open.