I recvd this email from a group I belong to. It is a freecycle group, but sometimes people post for advice as well as stuff. First is the email then my response. It amazes me how so many put the emphasis on the birth of the supposed Jesus, yet fail to understand what Jesus would have done in the situation the song describes...and what would have been more important to him if he were real.

MY DAUGHTER IS IN A PLAY FOR CHRISTMAS AND THE SONG THEY PICKED TO SING
IS CHRISTMAS SHOES BY NEWSONG. IF YOU GO TO UTUBE AND CLICK ON
CHRISTMAS SHOES LISTEN TO THE SONG AND TELL ME WHAT YOU THINK. I FOUND
MY DAUGHTER CRYING HER EYES OUT PRACTICING THIS SONG. ITS ABOUT A
LITTLE BOY WHO HAS NO MONEY TRYING TO BUY HIS MOM THAT IS DYING SHOES
FOR CHRISTMAS SO WHEN SHE MEETS JESUS SHE WILL LOOK BEAUTIFULL. ITS SO
SO SO SAD AND I THINK ITS JUST TOTALLY UNAPROPRIATE! ! IS IT JUST ME OR
IS THIS JUST WACKED TO HAVE KIDS SING THIS SONG WHEN THEY SHOULD BE
CELEBRATING THE BIRTH OF JESUS?????

Mr. P. wrote:Let me ask you this. If Jesus were alive, would he be more concerned about celebrating his birthday or helping the child and the dying mother?

I am an atheist, so the whole Jesus thing to me is not all that important...but by my understanding of the teachings of Jesus, I think that this song would be very appropriate for people to sing at this time.

Mr. P., have you ever heard the song? It's awful. Outside of whatever religious issues one may or may not have with it, I wouldn't want any kid of mine singing the song, because it's just bad music. There are so many gorgeous Christmas carols, both religious and secular-esque, why, why, why does that terrible song get playing time, I'll never know.

I often wonder if it's because people don't know that the song, rather than actually being dramatic, plays with their emotions, in an atrociously melodramatic way. Like watching a movie that's more manipulative than good. Manipulating human emotions is easy, actually affecting them is the hard part. That song is manipulative, and is piss-poor at that because it's so obvious about it.

But to answer your question, and you might not care about my answer, being the dirty atheist that I am. The Jesus I always imagined, and of course I can't speak for him, but I think he wouldn't want his name to be used in the context of that song, at all. I certainly don't think he would appreciate children being subjected to the emotional masturbation that the song evokes. But then, I'm just doing what many theists do--projecting what I think onto my image of him.

irishrose wrote:Mr. P., have you ever heard the song? It's awful. Outside of whatever religious issues one may or may not have with it, I wouldn't want any kid of mine singing the song, because it's just bad music. There are so many gorgeous Christmas carols, both religious and secular-esque, why, why, why does that terrible song get playing time, I'll never know.

I often wonder if it's because people don't know that the song, rather than actually being dramatic, plays with their emotions, in an atrociously melodramatic way. Like watching a movie that's more manipulative than good. Manipulating human emotions is easy, actually affecting them is the hard part. That song is manipulative, and is piss-poor at that because it's so obvious about it.

But to answer your question, and you might not care about my answer, being the dirty atheist that I am. The Jesus I always imagined, and of course I can't speak for him, but I think he wouldn't want his name to be used in the context of that song, at all. I certainly don't think he would appreciate children being subjected to the emotional masturbation that the song evokes. But then, I'm just doing what many theists do--projecting what I think onto my image of him.

It is a bad song...but no worse than other Christian crap I have heard. I think of all of it as mental masturbation.

BTW...you DO know I am a dirty atheist too right?

Mr. P.

Oh, I don't know I'd say the shoe song is a good deal worse than say "Silent Night." Or "O Holy Night." Or "Away in the Manger." Or "The First Noel." Or "The Little Drummer Boy." Or...should I go on?

Actually, a nice Jesus is the reason Christmas song, or at least one I always liked, is "The Rebel Jesus."

irishrose wrote:Oh, I don't know I'd say the shoe song is a good deal worse than say "Silent Night." Or "O Holy Night." Or "Away in the Manger." Or "The First Noel." Or "The Little Drummer Boy." Or...should I go on?

Actually, a nice Jesus is the reason Christmas song, or at least one I always liked, is "The Rebel Jesus."

I abhor Xmas carrols. They are all sappy.

Rump a pum pum...in my freakin bum!!

Mr. P.

Oh I didn't say they weren't sappy. Though I could think of a few that aren't. I just said they are better than that freakin shoe song. And I think sappy, and by that I mean sentimental, is a lot different than the emotional masturbation of songs like the shoe song.

Though, I will admit, I take great pleasure in quite a few sentimental Christmas carols.

Mr. P: Let me ask you this. If Jesus were alive, would he be more concerned about celebrating his birthday or helping the child and the dying mother?

I think there are at least two important texts in the Gospels that might prove as guidelines to determining what was important to Jesus, and may prove helpful in answering your question. Both describe a way of life, rather than a set of beliefs that prove ultimately important. As I read the Gospels, Jesus is far more interested in what he calls the Reign of God, than he is in himself. I think he sees his life mission as intimately tied to this radically transformative heavenly realm: but it is found here on earth, amongst the outcast, failures and the broken. Also, it is a Kingdom in stark contrast with the Empire of Rome and its puppet regime in Jerusalem: thus the conflict with both centers of power and his eventual crucifixion.

Matthew 25: 34-40 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these, you did for me.'

Luke 16-19: "The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor."

I think the Christmas Spirit should be a dangerous thing: it is a force that mobilizes people against the dominant structures of oppression and complacency...it is not simply triage care for the sick and needy, donations for the poor, it is also a radical alternative to the very system of imperial disregard and violence that readily disposes of disposable populations.

I think it's important to understand the purpose of singing hymns (what are called carols during Christmas) in a Christian context. Understanding that different traditions approach it somewhat differently, there seems to be a fundamental connection to at least three functions: ecstatic praise, pedagogic formation, and congregational solidarity. When these functions are removed, I think the songs lose their intended purpose, and like any ritual that no longer elicits a requisite reverence from the participant...they become rote processes and vacuous events, sappy and meaningless.

That doesn't mean they can't still carry a nostalgic residue of warm memories of important familial and personal histories. Nor does it mean they can't still deliver as valued musical pieces in their own right.

DH wrote:That doesn't mean they can't still carry a nostalgic residue of warm memories of important familial and personal histories. Nor does it mean they can't still deliver as valued musical pieces in their own right.

I don't imagine that all Christmas carols were meant as hymns, but that's neither here nor there.

Removing the faith implicit in the Christian, let's stick with hymns, I don't think necessarily reduces their significance to familial nostalgia or music appreciation. (Though considering the classical roots of many of those hymns, music appreciation is probably inevitable.) However, even without subscribing to the faith in the personal god involved in the hymns, those can still be pretty powerful stories. Perceiving those stories to be mythical, doesn't remove all the significance, or the messages, of those stories. They can be very meaningful, as myth, nonetheless.

irishrose: I don't imagine that all Christmas carols were meant as hymns, but that's neither here nor there.

This is true, at least for the more modern, as you called them secular-esque ones. But, the great majority which have explicitly Christian themes, characters, events and scriptural references are hymns to be sung during the Advent, Christmas and Epiphany portions of the Christian calendar year. Christmas is an important part of the Christmas calendar, but it has taken a prominence in American popular culture that far outweighs it's traditional seasonal place: Lent, Good Friday and Easter are traditionally far more important than Christmas...I suspect it is because the Baby Jesus is easier to manage and less threatening than the Rebel Jesus .

irishrose: However, even without subscribing to the faith in the personal god involved in the hymns, those can still be pretty powerful stories. Perceiving those stories to be mythical, doesn't remove all the significance, or the messages, of those stories. They can be very meaningful, as myth, nonetheless.

I agree. Care to share what meaning you derive from them?