Re: The Glory of Christmas (musical show)

There’s a megachurch in the metro Detroit area that puts on a big show every year called The Glory of Christmas. It’s a big production. We’re talking pyrotechnics, live orchestra, and curtain dancers. They bill it as evangelism, and the idea is that members of the church buy the tickets and invite people. It sells out pretty quick.

The first half is all standard Americana like Santa and Christmas carols with dancers dressed as reindeer and Santa’s sleigh flying in on cables over the audience, that sort of thing. The second half they do the Christmas story up through Easter and the resurrection. Then the pastor comes on before the final act to explain that Christmas is about Easter, and we should keep that in mind when appreciating the nativity scene. This is the big evangelism part, where he prays and asks anyone who’s willing to pray for salvation along with him.

Mixed feelz. To summarize my feelings, I think it’s a good thing on the whole and I’m glad they’re doing it, with the caveat that it’s giving them a big head and the hubris is likely to come back to haunt them. The pastor said at one point, paraphrasing: “You didn’t think church could be like this, huh? This is church how it’s meant to be.” Aside from the unbearable Boomerness of being, he’s just wrong. At best, he’s exaggerating for effect, but that would still be poisoning the minds of his flock. He gets a zero on the assignment for that thesis.

First I’ll do the negative feelz re: the explicit reason for the show, then positive feelz re: the unspoken, real reason for the show.

In terms of evangelism, I note that my hosts invited me, a decades’ long family friend from a small church (that no longer exists) and their kids and grandkids. Their kids are all Christians with varying levels of religiosity or, in one case, a convert to Mormonism (probably for pragmatic reasons). That’s a sample size of one…but they’re pretty dead-on center typical for megachurch attendees. Which is to say quite pious in their personal lives, but more interested in church as a consumer experience than as an obligation to other people. I heard someone say on a podcast yesterday that the central tenet of Western liberalism is “no unchosen obligations,” which I think is correct. That’s certainly descriptive of the way people actually live and act. “If I feel obligated, it must be a consumer experience which expresses my sense of taste and social class.”

Returning to the evangelism question, I think it’s a big excuse to do the show. You could do better evangelism with the same money, in my opinion, although you might not be able to raise the same amount of money or get the same effort from the megachurch audience. When I say “effort” I’m referring to the fact that everyone involved in the production is associated with the church, from the singers to the wire dancers and orchestra. Think Hillsong church, where they work on this big show all year.

I think the bait-and-switch between the Santa show and the Christian show feels a bit cynical…but maybe that’s just me…and maybe I’m not being cynical enough! Is it having a positive, nonzero, non-negligible effect on evangelism efforts?…Probably. It’s hard to put myself in the shoes of a typical 110-IQ middle class Boomer friend of some other Boomer who invited them. I suspect they’re preaching to the choir, in the main, but there may be some stragglers. I worry that on the flipside they may be turning some people cynical.

There’s an extent to which big displays of money need only say “This is the dominant religion in this culture, this is what normies believe.” Lord knows that’s worked for undermining Christianity. I can’t tell you how many millions of young people have gone apostate for no reason other than the TV told them to with high production values. And we’re talking real shifts in true belief, I think. High-religiosity churchgoing kids still want people to like them, maybe even moreso than average, and the Schelling point in our culture is Superbad.

Now then, for some less negative talk, let’s talk about it as a pure expression of culture.

In terms of culture, it’s notable that the show itself is VERY good. I cry at movies pretty easy, so take this with a grain of salt, but they got me multiple times. The highs were high, the lows were low, and the talent was on point. It was certainly a nonstop feast for the senses and the emotional rollercoaster was well-constructed. It may not have hit quite as hard for someone who’s watching gore-porn sixteen hours a day while doing mind-altering substances to make it more intense, but I’m not a complete stranger to spectacle and I’d sign off on it as a nascent artfag.

The interesting part is how this is apparently the only way you can get conservatives to create big cultural productions in the modern day, so this constitutes the meat of the mixed feelings. This is why I say “it’s a good thing on the whole and I’m glad someone’s doing it, but…” Now that the internet right has gone all postmodernist, we cry and moan about how no one is creating big expensive cultural set pieces like this, so here we have a megachurch doing that. Should we turn up our noses because they’re being great big Boomers about it? I don’t think so.

The reason I make a big deal out of the hubris of it is I see the seeds of its own destruction in it. Is it possible to create conservative culture any other way in modern America than by pooling the money and talent of a megachurch under the guise of evangelism? Honestly, I think the proof is in the pudding–you don’t see it anywhere else, therefore no. I could make a lengthy, elaborate argument from the various demographics, their talents and capital, and the correlation with their values, but it would come out to the same thing. The sort of people who have the unusual mix of conservative values, artistic personalities, grassroots funding, and the capacity to work together for an entire year on such a large project are going to come together in this way. (Specifically in modern America, I mean. We could talk about how it could be done in the future, or how it was done in days of yore among people who may as well have been a different species, but right now you guilt normies into buying tickets for their already Christian children to fund the production and then congratulate them on their evangelism. Is it really lying if your audience is retarded? Well, yes, and that’s why it’ll collapse in a big fireball eventually.)

In many ways it’s like the original cathedrals. Is it really an expression of Christian values? No. Was it produced by a megalomaniac manipulating a bunch of retards who haven’t heard or spoken a truthful word since the age of four? Yes. Would it have been possible with any other population than highly religious Christians trying to do their best with what little understanding they’ve managed to pull together between wage-cucking and drinking sessions? No. Et cetera et cetera. But on the whole, I’m glad the cathedrals exist and someone’s building one. Or restoring one, or whatever analogy you like here.

Another good comparison is TempleOS. Terry Davis may have been a schizophrenic degenerate, but by golly I’m inspired by TempleOS as a coder. For those of you who aren’t aware, TempleOS was an engineering accomplishment comparable to building a space-worthy rocket in your backyard by yourself. As far as I can tell, he made all of the correct design decisions up front. Terry Davis described himself as God’s chosen programmer, and if we lay aside our biases we have to admit the evidence points to him telling the truth. God grant me a tenth of that talent and drive. TempleOS stands out as a light on a hill among coding accomplishments, and I can appreciate that in spite of everything else.

I guess what I’m saying about the big Christmas show is “God bless their autism.”