Christmas Controversy and Commentaries

I have been reading around the blogosphere, and it seems that everyone is writing about the deal with Christmas. Most of the commentary that I have read I agree--statements that generally state that Christmas is more than just one day, that there is no biblical precedent to a yearly observance of the birth of Jesus, that Christians are show once again their superficial commitments and ignoring the more important matters, etc. I must confess that I have not spent a whole lot of time thinking about Christmas this year and the whole "war" deal. I have been thinking about my grandfather, family, finals, and pluralism. I am thankful for the commentary others have brought forth which have reoriented me away from hearing the secularist agenda of defending Christmas and the politicizing of a tradition which, if not observed, would not destroy Christianity. But one thing I have not heard very much is the theological significance of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ. Most of the commentary has been culture-centered or addressing the controversy over whether or not America should be legislating "Merry Christmas." It is my contention that the underlying issue is not so much adherence to a nonbiblical tradition but rather the confession of the Christian which says, "I believe in Jesus Christ, conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary . . .". Church history shows that the nature of Jesus Christ being both fully God fully man have been center stage for orthodoxy versus heresy (Arianism, Doceticism, Apollinarianism, Modalism, etc.). The battle for orthodoxy rages on today with the attempt of religious pluralism to do away with the literal understanding of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ. What is worse than saying "Happy Holidays" is the underhanded tactics of pluralists to reconstruct the doctrine of the Incarnation as a myth which has only metaphorical meaning. I think that we may find ourselves engaged in peripheral issues which are only substantive because of they are consequential or emanating from the heart of the matter - that is, our world wants to do away with Jesus Christ of Nazareth as a historical figure and the Christian belief that he is literally God Incarnate. I am not saying that the commentary dealing with peripheral issues is not beneficial, for the staging ground of much debate and dialogue in our culture is found here. However, the undercurrent behind these waves of controversy is the Incarnation of Jesus Christ as a belief that is historically grounded and literally true. In the next couple of weeks, I hope to continue doing some research and provide some quotes from scholars and authors who are the real Grinchs'. They don't care whether or not you call your tree a "Christmas tree." What they want is to systematically present a new kind of Christianity without Christ, without the Incarnation, without Biblical authority, and have you to buy into it. Statistics shows that the majority of Americans already have (although 3/4 of Americans call themselves Christian). Maybe the real battle is not political or cultural but spiritual. Let us be "destroying arguments and every lofty opinion which raised against the knowledge of God, taking every thought captive to obey Christ . . ." (2 Corinthians 10:5).