Dave at Big Circumstances points to an article in Christian Today that gives a scene almost reminiscent of those kitsch manger displays with Santa Claus suddenly thrust into the nativity/crèche scene, bowing down to the manger. Westminster Abbey in London, site of the coronation of every crowned king or queen of England since William the Conqueror (11th C.), has added Hindu Snowmen, a Jewish Temple, and a Chinese Dragon to the nativity scene. I didn’t even know the Hindu had snowmen.
Dave asks, ‘What are they playing at?’ I have to ask the same thing. What does this message say if we simply include other characters in the front of our churches? During the whole stamp controversy, I asked what does it mean by putting Jesus on a stamp as some spokesman for the government. How does the presence of snowmen and dragons affect to the message of Christmas? According to the article, the canons at Westminster want it to be a message of peace and good will toward all people.
But, the message of peace and good will is the particularity of the birth of Jesus and the whole Christmas story (I would include the birth of John the Baptist in this as well). Yes, the birth is a sign that God will bring peace, but the birth with the life, death, and resurrection of Christ is the way in which God has chosen to bring this about. The angels promise peace and good will is because of what happened in Bethlehem, not expressing a general wish that peace and good will can come and oh we have this baby born as a sign that maybe this wish will come true. For Christians, snowmen and dragons are not the cause of peace. They distract from the message.
This has often been called the ’scandal of particularity’ of the Christian message. I join those who put the snowmen and dragon on the lawn of the Abbey in their hope for peace and good will to all people, but I see this as less a general hope. The hope offered is the one who has been born. God acted decisively in human history by taking on flesh and becoming one of us to reconcile us to God. That will continue to play out in human history as Jesus’ disciples continue the work Jesus did as he grew up. This would include intentional dialogue with those of other faiths, but not blurring the distinctions between us.
Two other thoughts: I wonder what those of other faiths think of us just taking their symbols and crashing them with ours? Perhaps they are OK with it. Perhaps they don’t share the mixing of symbols that the Abbey staff believe to be a no-brainer. But it usually seems to be Christians who do this – pick up some symbols of other faiths and throw them with ours as acts of unity. (I would really like to hear about these Hindu snowmen – I usually associate Hinduism with India, a country I do not associate with snow at all. Maybe this is more my ignorance, though).
My other thought concerns the Abbey itself. It’s more national shrine that church. Do I see them speaking for Christianity anyway? It’s one of my favourite London tourist attractions – and it is that: a tourist attraction. It’s known more for it’s connection to the coronations and the monarchy than it’s religious aspects. So, on another side, I’m really not bothered what the Abbey does. It would concern me more if Westminster’s Methodist Central Hall (across the street) did this.
I remember visiting the Abbey in high school on a trip from my home in California. I spent about three weeks in Europe, and we visited many of the old churches.
Your story reminds of what is going in America over the symbolism of Rick Warren as Obama’s pick to give the invocation at the inaguration in January. Warren isn’t a bad guy (necessarily), but he represents something to many gay activists that they hate because of what he symbolizes.
Symbols are interesting to me because they sometimes are much powerful that people originally think. If you read Tony Jone’s blog on Rick Warren, I think he is right that Obama probably underestimated how much of an uproar would occur over Warren. You can see the link here:
http://blog.beliefnet.com/tonyjones/2008/12/rick-warrens-long-cycle.html
As far as the Abbey is concerned, I think that it’s just weird to put all of these other characters as part of the Nativity. It really has no symbolic meaning other than some kind of “general” peace which has nothing to do with Christianity. In actuality, ironically, means nothing because it takes away the particularity of Christianity and these other religions combined with Christianity takes away the particularity of those religions as well. They are trying to say something, but end up saying nothing.
By: Danny Kam on 20 December 2008
at 5:38 pm
[...] 3. What would you think of adding an Hindu Snowman in a Nativity scene? [...]
By: …..links for your linking pleasure 16…… « Community of the Risen on 20 December 2008
at 7:17 pm
Dan, thanks for stopping by. I think you are right in what you say about what symbols say. I also wonder whether or not Obama knew the subsequent furore it would cause. But I think he would still make the choice again.
I agree with you that the statement basically says nothing. It was meant to be a gesture of some kind that at the end doesn’t hit the mark.
By: Will on 21 December 2008
at 9:59 pm
Hi Will,
Yes, I agree that Obama would still make the same decision. He is a politician and Rick Warren scores points with evangelicals. We’ll see what happens over here.
By: Danny Kam on 21 December 2008
at 10:10 pm
I’m just now seeing this.
Fascinating.
There’s an Episcopal church in Asheville, NC, that my wife and I stop in on occasion when we’re up there. They have a little tract display made of wood. Carved in the top of it are the symbols of various world religions.
I understand it is seemingly “progressive” to shirk off the supposed “crudities” of the scandal of particularity, but I have never once felt the appeal of doing so.
I have always rather enjoyed being a bit of a cultural iconoclast on this point: the claims of the gospel do not seem to me to admit of some nebulous melting-pot hodge-podge of whatever for whomever. The faith seems to me to have a very particular content that necessarily conflicts with contrastic contents asserting propostitions diametrically and logically opposed to its own content.
Which is to say that the scandal of particularity is a scandal for the simple fact that it is true.
I’m in a talkative mood tonight, apparently!
Wyman
By: Wyman Richardson on 26 December 2008
at 12:01 am
Thanks, Wyman. I agree with you – we want to pretend the details are incidentals and don’t mean anything (just another ‘expression’ of the same thing).
Glad you’re feeling talkative!
By: Will on 27 December 2008
at 9:16 pm
Hello everybody!!!!!!!!!!! My name is Saltanat and I’m from KAZAKHSTAN!
By: sAltA on 2 April 2009
at 6:55 am