Meeting God on Christmas
No doubt you have heard tales of the strange ways people have been sucked into the
Now comes Christmas, and God can use that too — Allegheny County v. Greater Pittsburgh ACLU notwithstanding. Tear down the crèches and He will find another way. As Jesus told the Pharisees who tried to snuff out all Jesus hubbub, “I tell you, if these were silent, the very stones would cry out” (Luke
“Hark, the herald angels sing” is part of American iconography, so they will pipe it through the mall sound system without your even asking them: “God and sinners reconciled.”
And this: “God rest ye merry gentlemen, let nothing you dismay. Remember Christ our Savior was born on Christmas day, to save us all from Satan’s power when we were gone astray.”
Someone will walk into Abercrombie and Fitch for a shirt and come out a child of God.




Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!








Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top35 Comments to “Meeting God on Christmas”
The son of God offers hope, redemption, purpose, meaning, and morality, in a world that seems to have lost the sense of those things.
Report comment to moderator
“My brother went to India in the 70s to find Maharaji’s enlightenment, and an Indian man handed him the gospel of John on the beach.”
I love it!
Our God reigns!
Report comment to moderator
Oh, here we go again. Are you talking about the 1989 case?
That case involved two religious displays on government property. One was a creche bearing a banner with an explicitly Christian message. The other was a menorah with a banner reading “During this holiday season, the city of Pittsburgh salutes liberty. Let these festive lights remind us that we are the keepers of the flame of liberty and our legacy of freedom.”
The courts held that the first was unconstitutional and the second was fine, because it was not promoting a specific religion.
Don’t you get this? THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT ENDORSE A SPECIFIC RELIGION. That is a very important part of freedom of religion. And upholding it is not persecution of Christians.
Somehow, I am pretty sure that if the city had erected an Islamic display for Ramadan, you’d be first in line demanding that it be taken down. But when it’s your religion being supported, you wonder why anybody has a problem with it.
One or two people have suggested that those of us who object are afraid of “theocracy,” so let me head that off here. I’m not at all worried that a government-sponsored Nativity scene is a step toward theocracy. That isn’t the point. The point is simply that Americans who are not Christians are still citizens and deserve a government that doesn’t elevate one group of Americans over another on religious grounds.
When a Jew or Wiccan or agnostic has to appear in Court, or transact business at City Hall, they don’t need a clear message that they are second-class citizens because they don’t go to a Christian church.
It is as simple as that. Why is this so hard for some people to understand? There’s no effort to “purge Christianity from our culture” or anything like that. The church next door to City Hall can put up whatever religious displays they like on their front lawn in full view of everyone driving by, and nobody’s going to object. Just don’t do it with tax dollars and with the appearance of official government endorsement.
It is sad that some people feel the need to bring this topic up when it’s not really relevant. Andree makes a good point about the ability of people to find or be found by God in any circumstance, and with the Christmas season upon us, the time is certainly right. But by interjecting the legal case into it, she undermines her own point.
Report comment to moderator
Thank you, Lord, for providing us the way to salvation!
The Lord had to really chase me around for awhile, and I’m so glad he did.
Report comment to moderator
Some people should read the Founding Fathers and the direct writings of the beginning of our government. Government money was used from the very beginning for many christian activities. States even taxed people to support the church of the states choice. I don’t want to go back to that, but to say we cannot have a creche put up by city governments or on city land is ridiculous. I am not going to argue the point. I just want to point out that things are not so black and white as SteveG makes it.
Report comment to moderator
And now back to the point. God does work in wonderful and awesome ways. It is one of the exciting things about being a christian to share these stories with one another.
Report comment to moderator
I love how the Christmas carols are piped in over the speakers in stores and sneakily invade our minds. Though, I can live without Frosty the Snowman. But it eases the agony of shopping and really cheers me up, when I find myself wandering through a store singing a praise song to the newborn king!
Report comment to moderator
Conversions in Abercrombie and Fitch, huh? Is Night Train going to have fun with this thread or what?
Report comment to moderator
In January of 2000 I went to L.A. on assignment from the magazine I write for in New York, and found Jesus when I suddenly realized my life was headed 180 degrees in the wrong direction.
I prayed and then dropped open a Bible, and when I opened my eyes Psalm 51 was there in front of me:
Have mercy on me, o God, according to Your unfailing love . . .”
My life has not been the same ever since, praise Him!
Report comment to moderator
re posts 3, 5:
Has it been established that Steveg and Andree are referring to the same case? If yes, does anyone take issue with Steveg’s representation of the facts of the case?
Report comment to moderator
Conversions in Abercrombie and Fitch, huh? Is Night Train going to have fun with this thread or what?
Bianca, “conversions” are simply psychological/emotional experiences, nothing more. Somtimes they’re very intense, sometimes not. But they can happen anywhere.
Report comment to moderator
Sure he does. That’s why 45 million babies have been aborted in America even as millions of Christians have begged God to put a stop to it for decades.
He can arrange a meeting on the beach in India; he can cause Andree’s kid to total the car but keep him from being injured; he can heal people from their colds in a week or so, but he can’t do a thing about abortion. Your god can handle the little stuff, but when it comes to the big stuff, he’s not quite up to the job.
Report comment to moderator
RR: This was my source of information on the 1989 case. If it’s inaccurate, I’ll be happy to stand corrected.
I am not sure if it’s the same case Andree is referring to. It is the only case that comes up using the title she provided as a search term, though, so I think it probably is.
Report comment to moderator
Placing a creche with a message on government property is hardly establishing a religion in the sense that the Constitution intended, which was to prevent the federal from establishing a specific religion. In Massachusetts until 1835 the state government taxed people to support the Congregational churches.
These ACLU types that go after creches are a bunch of gradgrinds who suffer the illusion that the Christians in the woodpile planning a theocracy.
Report comment to moderator
Pardon the omissions and tortured syntax of the above.
Report comment to moderator
That’s okay, Peter, we got your drift. (And you are correct.)
Report comment to moderator
Peter, I addressed your “planning at theocracy” issue in my post (#3).
Short recap: No, you’re wrong about that.
1835 was a long time ago. Until 1862, people in some states could own other people. Until 1920, women could not vote. Time passes, and people realize some things were mistakes and stop allowing them to go on.
Peter, if your city hall used public funds to build a Ramadan display with a message about submission to Allah, would you think that was ok?
Serious question, please answer. If you would not, why not?
Report comment to moderator
It’s getting harder and harder for evangelicals to avoid facing the fact that they’re losing the culture wars, and that America is being rapidly de-Christianized, despite the prayers and activism of millions of Christians. And a lot of them, when they do finally realize it, rather than just admit it and deal with it, do what Andree is doing here. They put a happy face on it and say it doesn’t matter. I think the technical term for this phenomenon is denial.
Now comes Christmas, and God can use that too — Allegheny County v. Greater Pittsburgh ACLU notwithstanding. Tear down the crèches and He will find another way.
But he can’t find a way to stop them from tearing down the creches in the first place? And he can’t put a stop to the murder of 45 million babies?
As Jesus told the Pharisees who tried to snuff out all Jesus hubbub, “I tell you, if these were silent, the very stones would cry out” (Luke 19:40).
Jesus certainly had a way with words. This was a figure of speech, Andree. He didn’t really mean that rocks would start talking.
“Hark, the herald angels sing” is part of American iconography, so they will pipe it through the mall sound system without your even asking them: “God and sinners reconciled.”
Actually, Andree, I don’t think you’ve been paying as much attention to the passing scene as Solon seems to think you have. Apparently you haven’t noticed that when stores and secular radio stations play Christmas music, they “sanitize” it. When they play songs like White Christmas, Frosty the Snowman, It’s Beginning to Look a Lot Like Christmas, etc., the songs usually feature a vocal performance (at least on the radio stations). But when they play songs like Hark the Herald Angels Sing, Silent Night, or any other songs that refer to the birth of Jesus Christ, these are usually instrumentals. Mustn’t offend Jews and Muslims with that nasty Jesus talk. Maybe you haven’t noticed this practice, (many Christian I point it out to had never noticed it until I mentioned it)but if you start paying careful attention, you’ll see exactly what I’m talking about.
Your columns remind me of an anecdote I read recently. I’m too young to have watched the early years of Saturday Night Live, but I’ve read a few books about the show. All the original cast of the show had left or been fired by 1980, so in 1981 a brand new cast was hired. And the resulting show was horrible. Many critics called it Saturday Night DOA. People were turning away from the show in droves, and critics were savaging it in print every week, openly calling for the show to be cancelled. Several weeks into the season, one of the original members, Bill Murray, came back to host the show. One of the sketches had him “rallying the troupe”. He told them to ignore the critics and just keep going, and he led them in a group chant. The chant? “IT JUST DOESN’T MATTER. IT JUST DOESN’T MATTER. IT JUST DOESN’T MATTER.” Your columns are the equivalent of that chant, Andree. As the world becomes less and less Christian, and as Chrsitians have less and less influence in the world, and as it becomes increasingly clear that “our God does NOT reign”, Christians can come and read your columns about the miracle of seeing a flower in late fall, about your son totalling the family car being an answer to prayer, about how God is the real kingmaker who controls everything who simply has to whisper and tyrants come running to do his bidding (although it’s never explained why He doesn’t just whisper to abortionists to stop killing babies). This makes them feel good for the nonce, and they can tell themselves that Andree’s right, God is still on the throne. And all the evidence to contrary? IT JUST DOESN’T MATTER. IT JUST DOESN’T MATTER. IT JUST DOESN’T MATTER.
Report comment to moderator
People like you have been going to hell for thousands of years too, Night Train, but that doesn’t stop Christians from trying to share the gospel (good news) with you!
Report comment to moderator
SteveG Peter, if your city hall used public funds to build a Ramadan display with a message about submission to Allah, would you think that was ok?
I would have no problem with that. I respect the devout messages of all religions and care little about where there message might be displayed. Americans are for the most part grownups who can handle various religious messages. If the local secular crusaders wanted to place a statue of “reason” on the city hall lawn, as the Jacobins once did inside the cathedral of Notre Dame, I’d lose no sleep.
What I find distasteful is the righteous and humorless gradgrind types of the ACLU with nada understanding of the transcendent, other than their own breathless position.
Report comment to moderator
I’ll take your word for your willingness to accept government-backed promotion of Islam, but I doubt many of your fellow Christians would be so accommodating.
My point is, and I stand by it, that the Christians who don’t understand why there’s anything wrong with government endorsement of their religion can see very clearly why the government shouldn’t back other religions.
They only need to take one more step to understand why the government should be neutral to all religions.
I am not familiar with the term “gradgrind,” though I can figure out the meaning from context. I don’t agree with you … I don’t think that objecting to government support of religion automatically means “nada understanding of the transcendent.”
Report comment to moderator
Steveg: Government/public property is our property. We pay for them with our taxes.
night train: Be blessed, try and find happiness.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG, gradgrind is a common noun based on Dicken’s character in Hard Times. Thomas Gradgrind is “… a utilitarian who is the founder of the educational system in Coketown. ‘Eminently practical’ is Gradgrind’s recurring description throughout the novel, and practicality is something he zealously aspires to. He represents the stringency of ‘Fact’, statistics and other materialistic pursuits. Only after his daughter’s breakdown does he come to a realisation that things such as poetry, fiction and other pursuits are not ‘destructive nonsense’.”
Andree Seu, a connoisseur of the transcendent, would be the opposite of a gradgrind.
I seriously doubt whether the folks who wrote the Constititution would object to a creche being displayed in any public space. After all at several key points during its writing prayers were said by Christian ministers for God’s help with the formidable task.
Report comment to moderator
Roger at #22: Government/public property is our property. We pay for them with our taxes.
Exactly! WE, meaning all of us, all citizens, pay for them with our taxes, and WE, meaning all of us, all citizens, are entitled to fair and impartial treatment.
And that rules out any sort of religious display that elevates one part of the WE over another.
Report comment to moderator
Peter Leavitt at #23: I seriously doubt whether the folks who wrote the Constititution would object to a creche being displayed in any public space. After all at several key points during its writing prayers were said by Christian ministers for God’s help with the formidable task.
Perhaps they wouldn’t. They didn’t object to people owning slaves, either. That didn’t come for nearly another century.
Although given the number of the Founders who were Deists, it’s entirely possible they would object. But that aside, the Constitution is not a static document. It can be amended, and intepreted, and argued over. And over the course of time, freedom of religion has come to include the idea that government should not support one religion over another, but simply stay neutral and not infringe the rights of anyone to believe what they wish.
Why isn’t that enough for you? Why are you not satisfied until you also can get City Hall on your side to help you promote your beliefs?
Report comment to moderator
Satan?
Angels?
Demons?
Supernatural Forces?
Mysticism?
Occult Beings?
Floating Lights?
Premonitions?
Devils?
Spiritualism?
’scuse me, I live to in the “real” world. Bubye.
Report comment to moderator
11, 12 – Night Train, I’m sorry you feel that way about God. I don’t see abortion as something God is powerless to stop, but rather as His mighty sword. And He just hasn’t chosen to put it back in its sheath. And why should he? There’s so much feminism in the Church today that God’s not about to end abortion. Why should he, when His Church is so disobedient in regard to covenantal living? I see abortion as one of many ways God’s cursing our land. Many people say that abortion and other sins are bringing God’s judgment. I say, they are His judgment.
I know you don’t agree, but that’s the way I believe. With the others here, I hope you come back to the Lord. I appreciate your authentic conservatism in many areas, even if you aren’t a believer.
Report comment to moderator
“Exactly! WE, meaning all of us, all citizens, pay for them with our taxes, and WE, meaning all of us, all citizens, are entitled to fair and impartial treatment.”
I’m not in disagreement with this. But too many times it has come to mean unfair and partial mis-treatment for those who are religious. There are quite a few cases decided in favor of Christians every year because of this…
Report comment to moderator
“Why isn’t that enough for you? Why are you not satisfied until you also can get City Hall on your side to help you promote your beliefs?”
Christians could be fairly accused of trying to get City Hall ‘on our side’ if we were attempting to get city-funded creche scenes to the exclusion of monuments to other religions and/or belief systems. By now, tho, one would think Steveg could come up with some actual examples of Christians doing that. It’s hardly news that Peter in #20, and I, and every believer whose views I am familiar with, are OK with similar representations of other ideas, whether Ramadan-esque or Reason.
Now whether public displays such as the types we’re discussing are really the sort of thing on which city fathers oughta be spending scarce tax dollars, is another, separate, fiscal, non-constitutional question, of course.
Report comment to moderator
I’ll take your word for your willingness to accept government-backed promotion of Islam, but I doubt many of your fellow Christians would be so accommodating.
I would have no problem with an Islamic or Jewish or Hindu display on city property, as long as evangelical Christians are represented as well.
Merely allowing a religious display on city property does not mean the government is promoting that religion.
Report comment to moderator
Someone will walk into Abercrombie and Fitch for a shirt and come out a child of God.
More likely, someone will walk into Abercrombie and Fitch and “come out”.
Report comment to moderator
Outkast, but that’s just the issue. Local governments run afoul of the Constitution when they DO promote one religion and exclude others. If the display is just a Christian nativity scene, with a banner proclaiming Christ — as was the case in the 1989 Pittsburgh example — then it is promoting that religion.
And sorry if I am skeptical of your sudden openmindedness toward other faiths, but my observation has been that when towns do try some sort of inter-faith holiday display, Christians accuse them of trying to be “politically correct” or otherwise somehow insulting to Christianity.
The best thing goverments can do is just stay out of the religious aspect altogether. This does not seem complicated to me.
Report comment to moderator
I, and every believer whose views I am familiar with, are OK with similar representations of other ideas, whether Ramadan-esque or Reason.
RR at #29
I may be a bit off topic, as city hall and government is not the same as the retail industry, but today I received an e-mail where a Christian leader is upset that retailers are backing off from “Christmas” and using the more general “holiday” term.
In the interest of disclosure, I’m one of those Christians who is not sure that 1 Corinthians 9:22 (Paul’s all things to all men) cancels out Deuteronomy 12:30 (not adopting ways to worship), and I don’t celebrate Christmas. Perhaps my thoughts are explained by my bias, but I don’t understand my fellow Christian’s viewpoint in rescuing the title “Christmas.” By the same reasoning Halloween-lovers should take issue against Christians’ “harvest festival” alternative. Should we insist that greeting card companies stop making “Turkey Day” cards and insist on “Thanksgiving?” Why do Christians want to claim the “Christmas” name over secularized Christmas celebrants who leave out Jesus? Wouldn’t they want to distinguish the Christmas name for those who believe in the “reason for the season?” God grew tired of the very appointments He set up when the celebrants did so meaninglessly (Isaiah 1:13), though He didn’t throw them out. So, there are some thoughts, not necessarily reaching a conclusion or cohesiveness, but there just the same for any fellow compelled to sort me out.
I too am glad for the gospel message in the songs, and that God’s calling to us transcends all the messy circumstance of this world. We need Him!
Report comment to moderator
31 (Anlir) Amen! That’s the more likely scenario!
Report comment to moderator
I can get tired of the ubiquitous Christmas music piped into most retail stores from Thanksgiving till the end of the year, most of which is not spiritual in nature. However, I recently was stepping out of a department store into the cold and heard, “Born is the king of Israel,” and was touched. The age-old glad tidings are still being published, through means as humble as shopping mall speakers.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!