Llewellyn Worldwide, Ltd.
View your shopping cart Shopping Cart | My Account | Help | Become a Fan on Facebook Become a Fan | Follow Us on Twitter Follow Us | Watch Us on YouTube Watch Us | Subscribe to our RSS Feeds Subscribe
Browse ProductsAuthorsArticlesBlogsEncyclopediaNewslettersAffiliate ProgramContact UsBooksellers
Advanced Search

Putting the X in Xmas

This post was written by Donald Michael Kraig
on December 14, 2012 | Comments (9)

Ever since I was young I’ve had a “thing” about religion and spirituality. Although I often found myself disagreeing with various religious beliefs, or with ideas being presented as supposedly representative of various religions, I still had respect for the underlying concepts. Sometimes, I found that people would create religions not to help others, but to help themselves—generally to power, money, and/or sex. I didn’t like what they were doing. I felt they were harming others by mocking religions or spiritual paths.

I still feel this way.

And that brings me to Xmas.

When I was old enough to understand that Xmas was an abbreviation for Christmas, I felt there was something wrong with it. Even though I didn’t believe in Christmas (except for the gifty part), I felt it was disrespectful to take Christ our of Christmas and replace it with an X.

I’m not the only one who believes this way. According to Wikipedia, evangelist Franklin Graham believes “Xmas” is wrong as does the author and news commentator Roland S. Martin, who said:

…for us as Christians, this is one of the most holy of the holidays, the birth of our savior Jesus Christ. And for people to take Christ out of Christmas. They’re happy to say merry Xmas. Let’s just take Jesus out. And really, I think, a war against the name of Jesus Christ.

Today, some news commentators claim there is a “war on Christmas.” In examining the proof for this claim, I find it to be not just false, but amazingly false. However, the seeming disrespect of having X replace the title Christ in Xmas is plain and obvious. It looked bad to me. In fact, how did the Latin letter “X,” pronounced “eks,” come to replace the title “Christ” at all? Not only did it feel wrong to me, it made no sense. So, being pre-internet, I went to the library and did some research.

It turns out that the X only looks like the Latin letter pronounced “eks.” In actuality, it’s the Greek letter “Chi,” (pronounced “kai”), the first sound of the title “Christ.” The use of “Xmas” is at least 1,000 years old. In English it has been respectfully used in writing by authors such as Lewis Carroll, Lord Byron, Samuel Coleridge, and U.S. Supreme Court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

But the use of the X as an abbreviation for Christ goes back much further. It was combined with the Greek letter Rho, which has the shape of a “P,” as symbolic of the title Christ. When pushed together, they form the labarum or Chi-Rho:

The labarum was used in many ancient Christian icons and symbols to represent Christ. It still is used this way in some Christian traditions. It supposedly goes back to the vision of Emperor Constantine as the sign, given to him in a dream vision, under which he conquered his opponents and turned Pagan Rome into a Christian state.

And earlier than that, the X was used by early, underground Christians as a secret sign of identity, similar to the way they used the fish emblem:

So today I have no problem with the X in Xmas. It’s traditional, it’s ancient, and it respects the path.

Deconstruction

And then, along came French philosopher Jacques Derrida. He was a founder of the school of literary criticism called deconstruction. One of the concepts of this school of criticism is that the original concept of the author doesn’t matter. The meaning of something should be based on what we know today.

If you read The Adventures of Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain with today’s mentality, you are likely to see it as racist. However, at the time it was written it was enlightened and anti-racist. It’s a valuable book to look at today for the story, the writing style (especially the dialog), and for understanding what was racist then and how our thinking has changed since it was published. But because some people only look at it from the attitudes of today, because they ignore history and the author’s intent, some public libraries have banned it and some high schools have abandoned its use.

And What Does This Have to Do with Magick?

Aleister Crowley was definitely sexist, racist, and and anti-semitic…when you look at him from a distance of more than sixty years after his death. For his time and society, he was just the opposite. Many of his attitudes were in opposition to the terrible sexism, racism, and anti-semitism of the upper-class British culture into which he was born. So there is a link, here, to one of the most important 20th century magicians. But there is more to it than this, and I need to begin with an explanation about my own attitudes.

Often, people write me and ask if they can change a particular ritual. I like to point out that magick is (or should be!) an experimental science. Try the change out. If it works, use it. If it doesn’t work, use the traditional method.

I’m in favor of change if there’s a good reason for it!

I’m not a luddite who is simply against any change. But the fact is, rituals become traditional because they work. The Lesser Banishing Ritual of the Pentagram (LBRP) was created by the founders of the Golden Dawn but based on ancient Kabalistic concepts. As proof of its strength, when people try to “improve” it they basically just change a few words or actions. In The Book of the Law, Crowley was told to “cast away” all of the old rituals because they were “black.” But he follows the format of the LBRP with his Thelemic replacement ritual, the Star Ruby. To my mind, that’s not “casting away” so much as giving it a bit of a nudge.

But there’s a difference between what Crowley did with the Star Ruby and what some people do with their “improvements” to Golden Dawn rituals. By the time Crowley wrote the Star Ruby he was an expert occultist. He knew the purpose for each of his changes. Some of the changes I’ve seen to versions of the LBRP have clearly been written by people who didn’t know what they were doing.

I am in favor of change in rituals if the people making the change know what they are doing and if there is a legitimate and mystical reason for the change. However, should the reason simply be because a ritual has been deconstructed?

One of my favorite passages in a Golden Dawn ritual is the honoring of the Divine. It reads like this:

Holy art Thou Lord of the Universe
Holy art Thou whom Nature has not formed,
Holy art Thou the vast and the Mighty One
Lord of the Light and of the Darkness.

Some people read this and their modern-day sexist buzzers go off. “Lord of the Universe?” That’s sexist. How can the ruler of the universe only be a male “lord?” As a result, some people have changed this first line to read “Ruler of the Universe” or “Lord and Lady of the Universe” as this takes into account both genders. It balances this elegant evocation of the Divine. Doesn’t it?

Well, for people who are only looking at it superficially, yes. It makes perfect sense. But the truth is, there’s something deeper to it.

“Lord of the Universe” is not simply a title of a male entity. Remember, the rituals are drawn from the Kabalah, and we have to look at the original language of the Kabalah to understand it. The term “Lord of the Universe” is an English translation of the Hebrew, “Adon Olam.” In the medieval Kabalistic book, Sh’nei Luchot Habrit, it says that the value via gematria of Adon Olam is the same as ain sof, making the two terms equal. Ain sof, meaning “without limit” is one of the titles of the the Godhead, one of the three levels of “negative existence” that gave rise to the Tree of Life. [I discuss this concept in Modern Magick.]

Ruler of the Universe is not the same.

Lord and Lady of the Universe is not the same.

I’m not against change; I’m in favor of it. Spiritual movements that do not evolve end up devolving into tired husks of their former beauty. They’re highly liable to turn into nothing but personality cults devoid of the spirituality from which they were birthed. But change for the sake of change is rarely of value. It’s important to fully understand the purpose of the valid original in order to make it an even better new form.

Otherwise, you’re just taking the X out of Xmas.

Reader Comments

avatar
#1 
Written By Luis A. Valadez (Oracle)
on December 14th, 2012 @ 12:17 pm

Thank you for this thought-provoking article.

I used to be a member of the “if it feels right, do it” camp. As I progressed in my occult studies, I realized my behavior was nothing more than a continued rebellious attitude of “doing something because someone did it that way.” It was unhealthy and unwise. I came to see how much that paradigm stunted my self-development.

Having practiced ritual magic for quite some time now (I must give a shout out to your book “Modern Magick” for beginning me on that trek), I understand the whys and wherefores of ritual better than I once did. Since then, I have gone on to practice other forms, all the while meditating, researching, and questioning why I am doing what I am doing. Approaching my Magic(k) in this way has opened my eyes to the intricate mechanics of ritual and the purpose of the correspondences that are utilized.

When I meet someone who tells me they “do what feels right,” I encourage them to always be that way. Being Pagan, our faith is corporately anti-dogmatic (or at least should strive as much as humanly possible to be so). But when it comes to practicing Ritual Magic(k), I tell them to research anything before they do it. I encourage them to understand why they are doing a certain something: why this tool, why that color, why that time of day? How does it all come together for themselves and the overall purpose of their rite? “I want East to be Green” is a simple enough example. Alright, why?

This is when I discover that this depth of introspection is what halts many people from engaging in ritual. It’s not that they are discouraged from ever practicing, but they realize the brevity of the situation. This isn’t a place for being rebellious and doing things just for the sake of doing them. This is about intelligent, thought-provoking, spiritually-enlightening methods of uniting with the Divine Self. It is life-changing, and I think people who approach any spirituality or practical work in this way will be better for it.

Thank you again!

Eirene kai Hugieia!
(Peace and Health!)
~Oracle~

avatar
#2 
Written By Jack
on December 14th, 2012 @ 1:10 pm

The only things I’ve changed in LBRP are the Names – YHVH is “HaShem” and EHIH is “Achad”. I’ve done this out of reverence for the names of God as I will not attempt to pronounce either the unutterable name of God or EHIH as they both should be respected more, IMHO.

avatar
#3 
Written By Donald Michael Kraig
on December 14th, 2012 @ 1:24 pm

Respectfully, Jack, what you’ve done is change the Kabalistic meanings and the impact of the sounds on you and your environment. You’ve change the links to the Sephiroht and their value by gematria. In essence, you’ve eliminated their power and their intent in order to be respectful. With respect (no pun intended), you’re exemplifying exactly what I was commenting on: you’re making changes in order to satisfy your modern-day mindset rather than the magick. It’s removing the X from Xmas because that doesn’t make you happy today while ignoring the original concept. Perhaps there are other alternatives to denaturing the ritual?

avatar
#4 
Written By Morgan Eckstein
on December 14th, 2012 @ 1:54 pm

There were numerous reasons for the change when we (my group) did it. Some of which I will probably never talk about. It was a conscious decision–not spur of the moment. Just hold close to your heart the fact that within ten years, my group will cease to be considered Golden Dawn and we are well aware of the fact that we are drifting away from that subset (in fact, some have already declared us non-GD before this change occurred in our rituals).

[Interestingly enourgh, I have gotten feedback from others that says that the new version is closer to original Kabbalistic intent than what was being used. Different Kabbalahs for different folk, I guess.]

avatar
#5 
Written By Jacquleine Herbst
on December 19th, 2012 @ 11:35 am

Dang, thought provoking; I like your clear writing style very much.
You may have discussed this somewhere, or maybe in one of your books, but is the original concept of “Deconstruction” different than how the term is used today by the modern media?
Also, is “Deconstruction”, the opposite of Hegel; I mean, didn’t Hegel say something about not being able to understand History, unless one understands the time period when history was made?

I don’t mean to get off topic; If you could direct me to a clearly written source that talks about stuff like this-(clearly in 100-200 pages or less), I would appreciate it. Thanks.

avatar
#6 
Written By Donald Michael Kraig
on December 19th, 2012 @ 12:17 pm

Unfortunately, Jacquleine, philosophers tend to be as long winded as authors. I would suggest looking at textbooks on philosophy that cover numerous philosophers as you will get brief (and, regrettably, often incomplete) discussions of their concepts. However, it is a place to start.

avatar
#7 
Written By Jacqueline Herbst
on December 20th, 2012 @ 10:27 am

I figured as much; maybe I will take “The Art of Wondering” at our local community college. They say that the instructor is ‘really interesting’, but you end up. “talking pages and pages of notes”, each class period. Ha!, just what you said, long winded:).
Thank you very much for your reply.

avatar
#8 
Written By Clarence
on December 22nd, 2012 @ 1:51 pm

Since the celebration of the christmas feast in his most original form named Yule , people questioned the letter on fundamentalistic purposes. the meaning and the purpose of the feast slowly changed under the attacks of having primitive and pagan aspects.

That also for the the letters used for describing the event.
Every ritual who has been taken with the right precautions give’s a person the chance of a great reality of thruth.

belief and fundamentalism walk hand in hand.

I can say that my spiritual live and to what I compremise myself pays back in sunshine.

Trackbacks

Add a Comment

required, use real name
required, will not be published
optional, your blog address

Verification Code:
Please enter the words that you see, below, into the box provided.