A young man, in a minor bit of depression, explains his sad situation and conclude by saying, “My mom and step-dad keep Christmas,” to which a sympathetic girl replies, “Wow! I am so sorry,” continuing, “Some of my extended family keep Christmas and so does my sister it’s really sad.”
A second young man joins the conversation: “Yea, it is also really sad to know that some people who do celebrate Christmas, know it’s wrong but still celebrate it.”
Another young girl offers more compassion: “My grandparents [. . .] keep Christmas and everything else. It’s a very sad situation.”
Bree joins the growing group and adds, “We have some friends [. . .] now keeping Christmas, Easter, and everything else they shouldn’t keep. When they talk about Christmas, they say they are ‘twinkling’ now. And they are happy about it!!!!!”
In all this tragic Christmas-keeping, there is hope, though. A young lady named Ann joins the conversation and concludes with an uplifting anecdote, which shows that at least some recognize Christmas for what it is:
On a side note, my youngest sister, Caroline, is starting to really understand what holidays are pagan and the Holy Days we keep. She recognizes the Christmas colors and lights are bad, and she actually told me the other day that the entire town is celebrating Christmas, and it’s bad. Also, she told me that she doesn’t celebrate Christmas, Halloween, Valentine’s, or Harry Potter. . . Out of the mouths of babes, huh?
What is all this sadness about Christmas? Replying to “My family keeps Christmas” with “I am so sorry,” as if someone’s dog had died? The sadness of seeing “twinkling” friends and the relief that a little girl can condemn an entire town? In what strange world could these things happen?
I wish I could say I’d just made this nonsense up, but sadly, it’s an actual conversation, taken from the Living Church of God’s “Living Youth Web” message board. (The actual thread can be found here.) This is the reality of Christmas in Armstrong-land. Pressing dilemmas such as, “Is it wrong to accept [Christmas presents from friends at school]?” and concerns about the fact that “you can reword the word ‘Santa’ and make, ‘Satan?’” Forget the silly rantings of Church of God leaders — these spontaneous postings show the world of Armstrongism as it really is: a mixture of self-righteousness, illogical worries, and a basic misunderstanding of where things derive their meaning.
The self-righteousness of Armstrongism filters all the way down to the children, with Ann’s little sister summarily condemning a whole town as “bad” and Ann being proud of her for it. That’s one of the many paradoxes of Armstrongism: feeling better than everyone else because you realize you’re just a piece of shit that deserves nothing. The notion that you’re a worthless pile is nothing new to Christianity — that’s what original sin and Calvinistic total depravity is all about. (What!? You mean there’s an element of Protestantism in Armstrongism? Heaven forbid!)
Armstrongism also provides a nice measuring stick: those lights strung up are bad; we, without lights or Christmas tree, are good. Sunday church equals bad; Saturday church with the appropriate COG group equals good. It’s a measuring device so accurate and easy to use that even a child can use it.
To be an Armstrongite, it’s necessary sometimes to check your logic at the door. Browse through David Pack’s “The True Origins of Christmas” (available here http://www.restoredcog.org/books/ttooc.html) and it’s easy to see. But one need not look in the upper echelons of church administration to find this, for as Ann said, “out of the mouths of babes” come the most astounding things:
Also, something that is really creepy at times is, did you know that you can reword the word “Santa” and make, “Satan?” That kind of creeps me out at times, but anyways. Just something to ponder.
I wonder if this individual also finds it creepy that “God” backwards is “dog?” Or that you can find “The Strange Mob” in “Herbert Armstrong?” (Of course you’re left over with three r’s, but Armstrongism was never about precision.) Or that the Polish words for “priest,” “moon,” and “prince” all sound quite similar. (Clearly this shows that Roman Catholic priests are just another manifestation of the “Prince of Darkness,” and that they are simply “lunatics.”) It is this kind of uneducated “wordplay” that fills Armstrongite books, for example showing non-existent connections between ancient Hebrew and British place names.
To be fair, the young man who pointed out the “Santa/Satan” mystery is probably no more than eighteen years old and thus not even in college yet. Still, growing up in an Armstrongite culture, I too heard this pointed out, with adults, who should have known better, saying that this was more ironic proof that Christmas is of the devil. Never mind that they should have known that “Santa” is derived from “Saint.” That this little “proof” doesn’t work in any other languages. That, as pointed out, we can rearrange letters until we’re blue and it doesn’t prove much of anything except that we had a few moments of free time to find “The Strange Mob” in some old religious huckster’s name.
This whole message thread on the LCG’s board started because of the fact that Armstrongites don’t keep Christmas because of its pagan origins. It can’t possibly have any true Christian meaning because it’s so steeped in paganism, the argument goes.
Any second grader can go to almost any encyclopedia and “prove” that Christmas isn’t found in the Bible, wasn’t kept by early Christians, and is in fact celebrated on a day used by Romans for hedonistic merry-making and such. Still, Armstrongites like to write entire booklets to prove this, as if this somehow invalidates Christmas.
To begin with, it’s true enough that Christmas is not found in the Bible. Neither is paying one’s tithes with checks. Tithing in Biblical times required sheep and veggies — COG leaders probably would prefer cash. But wait — that’s not what God commanded. It must be pagan.
It’s also true that the early Christians didn’t keep Christmas. They also didn’t agree on which books should constitute the New Testament. Some felt that the “Book of Revelation” should be left out (Where would Armstrongism be then?!) and the “Gospel of Thomas” (that awful book that shows a very human Jesus) included. There’s also no evidence that the majority of early Christians kept the Feast of Tabernacles. I’ve read a little Origen — never found any references to “the Feast” there.
Lastly, there’s the issue of 25 December having been a pagan holiday. Of course, everything that the ancient Hebrews did had no “pagan” origins at all. No other civilization has ever sacrificed animals to God. No other civilization has ever sacred days. No other culture has ever had a holy place where only the most righteous could enter. By Armstrongite logic, though, the fact that “pagan” cultures did these things invalidates them for use in the proper worship of God. They derived their meaning from “pagan” cultures and no other meaning can be attached.
All this adds up to a tragically comic reality: someone can say something as seemingly harmless as “My mom and step-dad keep Christmas,” to which someone replies, “I am so sorry.” A young lady can be proud that her little sister declares the entire population of her hometown “bad” because they string up colored lights in winter. And a young man can be spooked by the arbitrariness of his mother tongue.
Welcome to Christmas in Armstrong-land.