Perhaps my favorite thing about the Christmas season—just a few days away—is reminding myself and others how subversive are the stories of Christmas. Among global literature, they stand out as baldly subversive and anti-imperial while at the same time being neutralized. The gospel writers of Matthew and Luke (the only canonical gospels with birth narratives) each in their own way set up a stark confrontation between Jesus and the Roman Caesars, of all things—something no first-century reader would have failed to recognize or to understand the audacity of. But for the most part, the two dramatically different accounts[1] are harmonized and Hallmark-ized in our day and historically—synthesized into one sweet story of strained hospitality and humble beginnings. At least this is how it is presented in the American context where we uncomfortably find ourselves as empire. America is the most influential global empire the world has known. Has this hampered our ability to understand what the Christmas stories are really saying?
The juxtaposition of Luke’s Christmas story is one between a peace brought through violence (the Pax Romana) and one brought through nonviolence by way of Jesus (Lk 1:79; 2:14; 2:29-32). In his birth narrative, Matthew emphasizes Jesus as the new Davidic king (Luke does as well), and then goes on to show how—unlike the unfathomably violent kingdom of David—the “kingdom of God” elucidated by Jesus is about self-giving, all-embracing love and a transformation of consciousness…. {Read remainder of article on Patheos HERE.}