Time to put away the carping

The presents have been opened. The family have returned to their respective homes.

The joy of being with my children remains, along with some sadness that the time together couldn't longer, but that's what happens when they grow up and begin to build their own homes.

The trees are still up and lit -- one of my favorite parts of Christmas because the ornaments remind me of the years gone by. I'm sure they'll come down this weekend, and I'll miss the lights each evening.

As glorious as the Christmas season is, one aspect will not be missed: the annual carping about putting the Christ back in Christmas. The message has been the same for decades, only the reason for carping has changed.

The phrase used to be bandied about because we were afraid Christmas had become too commercial, now it is seen as a remedy to the so-called War on Christmas.

Thing I haven't figured out is why we keep pushing that worn out phrase. Christmas is more commercial and secular than ever. Do we really think that continuing to fuss about it is going to stem the tide, especially when the nation is even more diverse religiously than before? No one has ever satisfactorily explained to me how giving overworked, harried store clerks "permission" to violate their companies' rules wins hearts and minds to Jesus.

We are so combative these days. Editorial letter writers complain about every perceived slight to Christianity and whine that no one worries about offending us. Heck, they don't have to worry. We're offended by just about anything -- or nothing -- these days. Our sense of outrage grows almost daily.

We are a bunch of spoiled, former only children who have suddenly been faced by younger siblings. "Mom, he's picking on me again!" is our cry.

Of course, our mothers would have told us something along the lines of, "Honey, just ignore him. He's just try to get your goat. Every time you react, he gets what he wanted."

Of course some Christians suffer injustice, even persecution. But most of the stuff being carped about fails to rise to those levels. And given that Jesus warned us that the world would be against us, why do we continue to be surprised when it is, even here in America?

We are not called to protect the American way of life; we are called to live as the faithful disciples of Christ. And no, the two are not the same, no matter how much we believe that Christianity forms the underpinnings of our our culture and government.

We'd do well to complain less. And we'd also do well to remember that Jesus' harshest words were not to the Romans and pagans of his day. They were directed at the community of faith. The people who believed they enjoyed God's favor.

Maybe, just maybe, if we were to listen, we would hear the Master's voice telling us that the problem lies not so much with the government and the boards of corporations and "the media" but in ourselves.

Who are "they"

I was fussing about something one day -- don't remember about what because I fuss so much -- and whoever the poor victim was who had to listen to my ravings interrupted with a question.

"Who are 'they'?"

You know how it goes. You're upset so you start nattering about how they did this, and they did that, but you don't ever indicate who "they" are. My listener wanted to know specifics. If my rant was the usual kind of fussing, I probably had no specific individuals in mind, and the whole concept worked better if I didn't become specific.

As long as my oppressors, or villains, or whatever were some nebulous "they," I could be as indignant as I wanted and also put myself in the position of powerless victim.

Though the phenomenon probably goes back to the beginnings of human consciousness, I've been unusually aware of how we use nonspecifc groups to feed our rhetoric these days.

One favorite group of long standing is, of course, the Liberal Media, often referred to as the Mainstream Media. The Media are responsible for an enormous number of our current woes, and we all apparently know exact who "they" are.

Except we don't. The New York Times is one favorite whipping boy, but some of its writers go off on their own tangents and produce articles that agree with a particular complainer's point of view. When that happens, The NYT may be freely quoted without the Liberal or Mainstream tag.

A current favorite is the Government. Whatever the Liberal Media aren't busy ruining in our society, the Government is. The Government is this evil, wasteful, horrible entity whose only purpose seems to be to make life miserable. Until, of course, we have some problem we want solved.

Amorphic groups can work on the other side of an issue as well.

The Founding Fathers are often invoked in support of a number of causes. Whatever you want to see happening in society can be backed by bringing them up.

The Founding Fathers wanted America to be a Christian nation. No, The Founding Fathers wanted America to be a haven for religious liberty. But what Founding Fathers are we talking about? Who are they?

Every election cycle brings up another amazing group: The American People, who always "have spoken." The only problem with that is that apparently I cease to be part of The American People about every other election or so.

Just think about all the groups that have so much influence. The Man wants to keep you down. The Religious Right wants to us to live in a theocracy. The Liberals want to create a socialist society. The list goes on and on.

Unfortunately, I find that the actual uselessness of using these nonspecific groups as support for whatever side I'm taking hasn't stopped me from invoking them. Apparently I prefer the easy argument to serious discussion and specifics.

One of my own favorite groups was Readers, as in newspaper readers who might have actually read an article of mine in the paper or magazine we produced. I have to admit I miss them as both scapegoats and supporters.

I'm in search of a new, amorphous group. Sure hope I find one soon because when I do, they're going to have some explaining to do and some causes to promote.