Ah well, if you insist. ;-) I think the paper's been recycled, but as far as I can remember the gist of the argument was something like this:
1. Christmas has been hijacked by materialism, and part of this is quite likely due to the fact that Christianity hijacked someone else's festival first.
2. There is no particularly good reason why Christmas should be in December. As you say, we don't know when Jesus was born, and it can't have been all that cold because the shepherds were out all night.
3. There is a yawning gap in the Church year between Trinity and Advent (bar a few saints' days) where there is nothing but green (as opposed to red, purple, white, etc) for months on end. Green is for Ordinary Time, and, to be quite frank, ordinary is what it is. There would be plenty of room for Christmas.
It would mean a huge disruption, of course, but there's no specifically liturgical or theological objection to it so far as I can see.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
momijizukamori
no subject
Date: 2006-Dec-16, Saturday 22:27 (UTC)1. Christmas has been hijacked by materialism, and part of this is quite likely due to the fact that Christianity hijacked someone else's festival first.
2. There is no particularly good reason why Christmas should be in December. As you say, we don't know when Jesus was born, and it can't have been all that cold because the shepherds were out all night.
3. There is a yawning gap in the Church year between Trinity and Advent (bar a few saints' days) where there is nothing but green (as opposed to red, purple, white, etc) for months on end. Green is for Ordinary Time, and, to be quite frank, ordinary is what it is. There would be plenty of room for Christmas.
It would mean a huge disruption, of course, but there's no specifically liturgical or theological objection to it so far as I can see.
Looking forward to your 'puritan correctness'!