let myth continue

As usual, Same Facts has a helpful Jewish perspective on the faith in public life debate. I have to chuckle at Mark Kleiman’s assessment of Christopher Hitchens, and his honest willingness to concede where Hitchens is right.

I don’t know how to assess the historicity of Chanukah, but I appreciate Kleiman’s basic stance here, one that is equally applicable to Christmas in these days. It’s fine to question the traditional stories have been passed down to us, especially if we think they have in some way harmed anyone. But some people are so fixated on busting myths that they get in the way of the genuinely human benefits of some of these traditions. So what if Jesus’ birth did not happen in the way related in the Gospels (and, since we have two somewhat conflicting accounts, we have to assume someone was fudging the facts)?

The virgin birth is usually the sticking point for the historical crowd. Sure, it’s scientifically improbable; but the theological point for the Gospel-writers is not about women’s virtue. The point is that Jesus’ blood lineage, which traces from David through Joseph, is not really important. His kingship is not of this world. And the theological point, which is far more important to me, is the marriage of heaven and earth, of divine nature with human flesh. God could accomplish that in any way God chooses, I suppose, but if God chooses to do it by foregoing a human father, why the heck not? In fact, leaving the father’s contribution out of it strikes me as the most radically feminist proposition of all. A human mother was necessary for the Word to become flesh. A human father? Not so much.

 To people who are fixated on the “facts” this time of year, I want to say, show some imagination people! To those who would smash the idols of others simply because they are easy to smash, I say, lighten up. This season is dark and cold enough as it is without your throwing Enlightenment ice on everything.