What does “inclusivity” mean?
A town had an argument. Are they lighting a Christmas tree or a Holiday tree?
Those wanting to call it a Holiday tree argued for inclusiveness. They don’t want non-Christians to feel left out.
But tell me, why should Christ be left out of Christmas for the sake of inclusivity? In other words, why should the opposite happen; why exclude Christians from their own celebration for the sake of inclusivity?
Is it not just as disrespectful and offensive to Christians to have them deny the reality of the Christmas season and its real meaning so as not to offend those who have no belief in the message of Christmas?
Yes. Christmas IS about Jesus, the very Christ in Christianity. Christmas IS about all that is believed-in, believed-about, and hoped-for, surrounding the person of Jesus. That is why Christmas is celebrated. Yes. Jesus is the reason for the season.
Why take offense at the obvious? All religions have their Holy Day (hence “holiday”) celebrations, their liturgies, symbolisms, and dramatic reenactments. No one seems to take offense at Buddhist, Hindu, Judaic, or some other religious celebrations. When the Jewish community celebrates Hanukah, I hear no one demanding inclusive language for that occasion. And I dare say that I should not expect to.
Okay, perhaps it is because, unlike other religious celebrations in America, Christmas (along with its Christian message) pervades our popular and dominant culture. If so, why is that a “sin”? (Indeed, secularism has its own list of mortal sins that people must not commit and, it would seem, this is one of them.)
The problem to some degree is a controlling one, a question defining reality—that is, who gets to do so. This becomes a question of power and authority and of course control.
True, Christianity and Christmas pervades our American culture—TV commercials, businesses, town squares, etc. But that is because, thus far, the majority of the American people have been Christian or at least nominally so. (Granted, this may change over the years.) Nevertheless, our towns and schools and communities are presently bending over backwards to allow each religion their special days and have their recognition. However, this should not mean that Christians must abrogate their own faith and redefine their celebrations—such as Christmas trees, Nativity scenes, and Christmas hymns and carols in order to be all-inclusive. We must not deny the faith of the many for the want of faith of a few.
Let it be what it really is. A Christmas tree is a Christmas tree—it is the reason why the tree is decorated in the first place and it has a more intentional meaning than merely saying, “Have a happy festive time.”
When we start renaming things out of a demand for political correctness and a desire for all-inclusiveness we actually end up disrespecting and dishonoring everyone’s values and beliefs. For, it becomes a lie. Pretending that a thing is not what it really is or what it was really meant to be undermines true integrity and honesty and openness—and disallows authentic invitation and welcoming that leads to true inclusiveness.
That is to say that real inclusiveness honors and respects people’s differences of opinions, beliefs, values, and practices without forcing conformity or enforcing artificial unity by shutting people down for their differences or making people go underground with their precious beliefs and practices.
Let the Christmas tree therefore BE a Christmas tree. This is the Christmas season. Let it remain so. Non-believers should also be free to have their secular generic and innocuous holiday parties running parallel to the seasonal Christmas parties, but don’t demand that Christmas be changed into something it was never meant to be in the name of watered down inclusivity. For when that is done real exclusiveness begins to take hold, which is the disdain, rejection, and negation of a people’s true beliefs in the name of some vaguely defined vanilla flavored all-inclusive unity.
No comments:
Post a Comment