Happy Holidays?
Not “Merry Christmas,” but “Happy Holidays.”
As if Kwanzaa and Hanukkah are somehow on the same level as Christmas.
First off, Kwanzaa is a fraudulent holiday. After the 1966 Watts riots, a man named Maulana Karenga created Kwanzaa, blending various African traditions. It’s a modern invention.
Worse still, Karenga stated that his goal was to "give Blacks an alternative to the existing holiday of Christmas and give Blacks an opportunity to celebrate themselves and their history rather than simply imitate the practices of the dominant society.” He believed Jesus was psychotic and Christianity was a "White" religion that Black people should reject.
Yet the biblical Christmas story teaches us that Christ is Lord of all, regardless of skin color.
Secondly, Hanukkah isn’t the Jewish Christmas. It’s not even a major Jewish holiday like Yom Kippur. Its proximity to Christmas on the calendar has led to its commercialization, primarily as a way for companies to cash in on the season.
“Happy Holidays” has become a politically correct way to monetize cultural sensitivity and inclusivity.
But more than that, it’s an attempt to reinterpret Christmas, matching it to modern values and erasing its Christian influence. Regardless of where you stand on Christmas—since some Christians don’t celebrate it for conscience reasons—this should concern every believer.
Secularism is an enemy of Christianity.
There’s also a related danger: not the erasure of Christianity, but its augmentation.
We can allow culture to redefine Scripture’s meaning simply because we are lazy readers of the Bible.
This happens frequently with the Christmas story.
Take nativity scenes:
The setting is often a rickety barn or rundown shed in a desert, with a star overhead. Baby Jesus is in the center, flanked by Mary and Joseph. Around them are shepherds, three kings with camels, and various livestock.
Most of these elements are biblical, but they didn’t all happen on Christmas night.
The three kings didn’t arrive the night Jesus was born—they came months later.
They weren’t kings but Magi, Persian wise men who studied the stars.
Scripture doesn’t say there were three of them; it mentions three gifts.
And Persian Magi likely traveled on horses, not camels.
Despite this, we still sing:
"We three kings of Orient are, bearing gifts we traverse afar..."
Catchy tune. Not strictly Scriptural.
I’m not trying to be a humbug, but these inaccuracies should encourage us to read Scripture more closely.
Take Luke 2:7:
"And she gave birth to her firstborn son; she wrapped Him in cloths and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn."
Much has been made of the phrase “no room in the inn.” Sermons, songs, and even cartoons have been built around the idea that Jesus was rejected.
For example, Casting Crowns sings:
"Family hiding from the storm
Found no place at the keeper’s door.
It was for this a Child was born..."
The problem is, this isn’t in the text.
What storm were they hiding from?
Joseph wasn’t warned about Herod’s plot until months after Jesus’ birth.
Where does Scripture say Jesus was born at night?
The idea of Mary having labor pains on the road to Bethlehem and giving birth in desperation comes from a 2nd-century apocryphal text, The Protevangelium of James. Early church fathers like Jerome rejected it as inaccurate.
Luke 2:6 says, “While they were there, the days were completed for her to give birth.”
There’s no sense of urgency. They arrived in Bethlehem, resolved the housing issue, and then Mary gave birth—possibly during the day.
What about the “inn”?
The Greek word translated as “inn” doesn’t mean a commercial inn like a motel. In Luke 22:10-12, the same word is used to describe the “guest room” where Jesus ate the Passover with His disciples.
Kenneth Bailey, in Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes, argues that Mary and Joseph likely stayed in a home where the guest room was already occupied. So, Jesus was born in the main room, where animals were often kept at night for warmth. The manger would have been a feeding trough nearby.
This interpretation aligns with Near Eastern hospitality traditions. It’s unlikely that Joseph, a descendant of King David, would be turned away by relatives or townspeople in the city of David.
The point isn’t a cold rejection of Christ but the humility of His birth. The King of kings wasn’t born in a palace but in humble quarters, announced to shepherds—ordinary nobodies full of faith.
The angels said to them:
"I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people: Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; He is the Messiah, the Lord."
So, instead of indulging in sentimental guilt over “making room in your heart,” follow the shepherds’ example: proclaim the good news with joy.
Tell the world there is a Savior for the great and the common.
Tell them He is God and King.
Tell them, “Merry Christmas.”
You have a small point there but i think you're missing the bigger point about how most of the messages we hear are very sensationalized due to the influence of the age that we miss, and due to lesser influence of the Bible itself and the truth it brings, in comparison. @elle
I've been thinking about the American celebration of Christmas, in its present, “Negative World” and almost entirely secularized from. We hold on to a great many Christmas Traditions but have almost forgotten that anything else *ever was* behind them past the traditions themselves. It becomes, or has become, about rootless “tradition” itself. Exhibit A is the wretched "Elf on a Shelf," launched just a few years ago with the subtitle of "A Christmas Tradition" preemptively assigned.
That's not how any of that *works!*