The Santa myth

Connor’s got a very interesting post on Santa (quoting from an editorial here):

[The children] had been told by adults they trusted that Santa was real. They had seen Santa and talked to him. Santa was everywhere visible and talked about. And Santa delivered! If what they had been told about Santa was not true, then what could they believe? Who could they believe? This was a sobering day.

I believe that adults build up Santa for their own pleasure (although they all claim to be doing it for the children.) Conversely children’s souls hunger for the truth. They want to be treated respectfully and taken seriously. (None of us like to be the ones “not in the know.”)

A few thoughts, born from the five responses to his post so far. First, Christ has to be the center of Christmas. Period. He often isn’t, because of our materialistic society that obsessively focuses on gifts instead of the Giver, but that doesn’t mean He shouldn’t be the center. Everything needs to point to Christ. If we really believe in our religion, there’s no way around that. Nor should we want to put something in Christ’s place (an antichrist, really), if we believe. The Alpha and Omega is far more important than Santa or snow or jingle bells or anything else, because He is the only way through which we can overcome sin and death. Santa can’t resurrect people, and mistletoe can’t wipe away the stains of sin.

Second, I think most people would agree that the commercialization of Christmas is a Bad Thing^TM. We need to shift our perspective, to see with new eyes. And there’s no better way to do that than to turn to Christ, who gave all. When we’re focused on the Savior, it’s hard to be taken in by all the glitter and glitz of things, things, things. Things don’t matter. People do. Christ does. Love does.

Third, I completely agree with the editorial in that disillusionment about Santa can have negative repercussions in other areas of belief. Are we really justified in lying to our children? Really? We can tell them stories, of course, and anyone who’s read this blog for more than a few weeks will know that I will root for fiction till my dying day, but we must not — repeat, must not — try to pass these stories off as truth! If truth matters to us as much as we say it does, then the Santa myth has got to go.

Fourth, let me clarify what I mean by “the Santa myth has got to go.” I mean the lie that Santa is real. But I don’t mean that Santa himself has to be booted out of Christmas entirely, any more than the Easter bunny or the tooth fairy should be exterminated. It’s okay — in my mind — to keep Santa around, as long as it’s clear he lives solely in the imaginative realm. For me, thinking of Santa and his elves helps sprinkle some fairy dust over Christmas, adding some sparkles of excitement. And that’s fine. The only real problem arises when those sparkles get in the way of Christmas. They don’t have to. But they often do. If we can’t keep Santa from stealing the scene from the baby Jesus, then it’s time for Santa to exit stage right; if we can keep the focus on Christ, however, then I see no problem with adding a minor character on the stage. Let’s just remember, as Tiny Tim says, “who made lame beggars walk, and blind men see.”

Funny. I don’t think I ever believed in Santa. Mostly because I was a precocious child. When I was 3, I started asking my mother about what was real. I asked her if Santa, and Jesus, and Big Bird were real. And at that point, she had to tell me the truth–because who can tell a kid that yes, Santa and Jesus are both real, whoops!–not Santa! and have them still believe in Jesus?

Funny, my roommate interviewed me just the other day on how I ‘found the truth about Santa Clause’ for her journalism class. She asked what my parents told me about Santa, how I found out he wasn’t real, and what I’m going to tell my future children. I thought it was interesting because I hadn’t thought much on it before. I’m grateful, however, that my mother taught me about “Santa” as a historical figure, Saint Nicholas - a man who loved God and who loved giving gifts. Then the conversation always shifted to why we give gifts and then to the Christ child. I’d say she did a pretty good job. =)
Christmas is one of those holidays that has become so warped from commercialization, like you mentioned. It’s a shame that more and more children are taught to believe in Santa and gift-getting than in Christ and His purpose here on earth.
So I agree - Santa should be placed in the story-tale category (try to retain a bit of the magic). While the *reality* of Christ should always have center stage.

First, Liz posted “Why I Believe in Santa Claus” a week or two ago, but the trackback didn’t show up (Blogger apparently doesn’t do trackbacks and pingbacks, which is a pity), so here it is anyway.

Amy Gordon: Would you say that Christmas lost some of its magic because you knew Santa wasn’t real? (I’m expecting a “no,” but maybe I’m wrong. :))

Amy Holt: Your mother’s method sounds quite good. And yes, the reality of Christ should always have center stage. The same problem tends to occur with Easter, at least to some degree: the Easter bunny and candy overshadow the Resurrection. It’s not bad to have an Easter bunny or Easter eggs or candy hunts or what have you, as long as the focus remains solidly on Christ.

Here’s my response to Liz’s post, by the way.

It seems that we’re talking about two different kinds of belief here. When you say your family believes in Santa Claus, do you really mean you think Santa is a real person up at the North Pole with a cadre of elves, and that he lands on your roof each Christmas, comes down the chimney, and delivers presents? You consider Santa to be as real as George W. Bush or San Francisco?

I didn’t think so. (Since you say yourself that Santa is “unreal.”) Your belief seems to be story-belief, which is something quite different from real belief, in that it’s make-believe; you know it’s not real, but you try to suspend your disbelief so you can enjoy it as if it were indeed real.

Now, the problem is that children can’t easily discern between the two — at least not when we’re insisting that Santa really does exist, the way New York exists. Encouraging a story-belief in Santa is fine, and that’s precisely what we’ve been saying. But encouraging real belief in Santa is not a good idea. It skews reality, invites disillusionment, and makes a mockery of the idea of truth. That’s lying.

If by “encouraging belief in the unreal…is harmless, necessary, even healthy” you mean that story-belief is good, and that it’s not the same as real belief, I completely agree. We anti-Santa advocates (I have to LOL here :)) aren’t disagreeing with that at all; all we’re saying is that Santa is not real and that he therefore should not be presented as such, but instead as a character in a story, inviting story-belief and not real belief.

We don’t need to have a real belief that the ghost story actually happened in order to be giddily frightened, by the way; we only need to have a story-belief, perhaps stronger than usual but still not real belief. It’s different.

[…] November 2006: languages, mythopoeia, photography, freeing the OED, Richard Dutcher’s apostasy, invisible children, the origin of my surname, and Santa Claus. […]