Here's the hard truth: when we let ourselves get wrapped up in these Christmas myths, no matter how nice they seem, no matter how plausible, no matter how neat, then one of two things happens:
First, we become so wrapped up in the myth that we defend it unto our death, refusing to even consider any evidence that they might be myths, fictitious accounts made up by persons with any number of motivations for doing so. (Admittedly, many might be pure motivations, but still.) So we cling to a Christmas story that is not the Christ child, and we hold to it forever because it's just too cool to let go of. And we feel like we lose something of Jesus if we ever let it go.
Second, we let go of the whole thing. Maybe we come into the evidence that tells us that that really cool thing that we were so willing to believe was actually made up, and all of a sudden, we don't know what the real story is any more. If the candy cane doesn't signify the blood of the Savior, then was there ever even a baby in a manger? If the sacrificial lamb wasn't wrapped in cloths and laid in a stone trough, then what do we make of the swaddling clothes we're told about?
Believing the myth can corrupt the story.
And again, let's be clear about what the story is: the story is that God Himself put on human flesh and came into the world to walk with us, talk with us, eat with us, wash our feet, and redeem us. Period.
I'm not saying there aren't layers to this that we don't understand. There are. I'm not saying there aren't things that are true about this moment that we don't understand. There are. I'm not saying the Bible is exhaustive in its description of the birth of Christ.
I'm saying it's sufficient.
Remember that just a few days ago, I proposed the presence of a servant in the stable. Given everything we know about how the Jewish world operated at this time, this is not some far-fetched idea. It takes a little bit of a sanctified imagination to picture it, but it's consistent with what we know to be true.
By contrast, the theory that's floating around about the shepherds and the sacrificial lambs...simply does not have historical evidence to support it. It proposes a fact that cannot be proven nor even suggested by the overwhelming testimony of history, and as such, it is not imaginative; it is fictitious.
The presence of a servant, on the other hand, has firm grounding in the cultural history of the time and so, though not specifically stated, extends an invitation to imagination and does not propose a missing "fact" that must be taken wholly.
That said, the presence of a servant is not necessary to the birth story of Christ. That is, it doesn't really add anything to our understanding of the moment. It doesn't change the fundamental nature of how we read the story. It is a supplement, but it is not foundational. It invites us to dance with the story in a new way, but it's the same story.
The story of the sacrificial lambs demands that we layer this fictitious narrative onto our understanding. Thus, it aims to change the story. It aims to define the story for us. We have to stop doing that.
The story is the story of God, wrapped in flesh, taking His first breaths in a barn, crying into the formless and void in a new creation, a new covenant, the fulfillment of His promise. And it is sufficient.
Understanding that, and only that, we have captured the heart of the Christmas story.
No comments:
Post a Comment