Newsweek and Christmas

Newsweek has published a cover article on Christmas which is fairly obvious in its disrespect for historical Christian beliefs. Hugh Hewitt asks what such an article means for the mainstream media.

I guess my answer begins with the question, "Is anyone really surprised?" What the Christmas article in Newsweek in particular shows is an increasingly irrational aversion to all things specifically Christian. And I would submit that it is precisely the historicity of Christianity that is the "problem" such articles wish to eliminate.

Modern and postmodern intellectuals have a rigid view that faith and rationality cannot in any way co-exist. One may believe whatever one wishes about the supernatural as long as that belief is neatly compartmentalized into the realm of subjective feeling or opinion.

But if one believes that Christianity is "true", that is, not just "personally" true or "religiously" true, but actually corresponds to reality, then that individual simply must be "eliminated", not literally, but marginalized, demonized, effectively removed from public discourse. And the best way to do this is to portray faith as separated from reality and deep faith as mentally delusional. Of course subtlety is the best method for doing so, rather than all out assault, but the goal is the same.

It would be a mistake to assume that all those who take this view are intentionally dishonest or malicious in intent. Many really believe what they are doing is right. But it is clear that the agenda of mainstream media is to keep religion in its place and not allow the realms of faith to influence the "real world". The obvious implications are that faith and public policy cannot mix, faith and public education cannot mix, faith and anything that might influence real world decisions must have a "wall of separation" between them. Hence it is necessary to paint the historical accounts of Christianity in the worst possible light.

Thus George Bush's faith becomes a target of ridicule. Mel Gibson's attempt to film a portion of the Gospels becomes a hate crime. Attempts to simply ask for equal time for "intelligent design" in public schools is a selling out of true science. Any discussion of the facts of prenatal development in relation to abortion is marginalized as a "religious" argument and thus irrelevant. And, directly to the point, belief in the virgin birth of Christ, celebrated for century after century at Christmas, needs to be scrutinized and corrected. It is assumed we just don't have enough "evidence" to support this account of "faith".

Oddly, I had always understood that historians crave manuscript evidence, of which there is an overwhelming abundance. Since when are four independent written documents by those reasonably close to the facts not evidence? Since when are records of eyewitness accounts not evidence? Shall we assume that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were incapable of asking Mary whether or not she went to Egypt or searching Roman records to determine whether there was a census? Shall we assume that the thousands upon thousands of converts to Christianity in the first century were incapable of checking the facts? Shall we assume that the early fathers of the church were involved in a massive conspiracy? Sales of "The da Vinci Code" provide the answer, I fear.

But if it is possible to marginalize people of faith by keeping that faith separated from history, fact, reality, then that is what will be done, and the MSM is a perfect medium for doing it.

One last point. The "Newsleak" article makes a point of emphasizing the many theological disagreements among Christians. Very well. There are many and always have been. But the Christmas story is simply not one of them. Though a few oddballs can be found in any era on almost any issue, not until the 20th century has there been any significant controversy within Christianity regarding the virgin birth of Christ. And no matter how the MSM may try to portray "scholarly" skeptics as mainstream Christianity, they simply aren't. It is remarkable the amount of unity Christianity has had on the question of who Jesus is over 2000 years of church history. "Born of the virgin" has been clearly stated in the almost universally accepted Nicene Creed since the fourth century and the phrase existed in creedal forms and hymns long before that, in fact, in the Gospels since the first century.

In questioning the nativity event, particularly during the Christmas season, Newsweek has engaged in the highest form of contempt for millions of Christians who have believed and lived across the entire globe for 20 centuries.