So I told my friend the answer he wasn't expecting: "neither." I tried explaining that it wasn't AC, it was AD, and that I didn't know what it stood for, but it was definitely AD. He looked confused, but not nearly as much as he would have if I had known and explained the actual definition of AD.
AD stands for "Anno Domini," a Latin phrase meaning "In the Year of the Lord." It represents not the birth year of Christ, but every subsequent birthday. AD 1 marks his first birthday, AD 23 his twenty-third, etc. For a thorough explanation of the timing of Christ's birth, I recommend Jesus the Christ by James E. Talmage. It's a tough read, but its language is beautiful and significant. This system of measurement was implemented in the sixth century but wasn't widely adopted until a couple centuries later (No sources. Just Google and whatever it could tell me). Most people don't know what AD stands for, and if they do, they often don't know what it means. And either way, when the ball drops and we bang pots, shout "Happy New Year," and kiss a random stranger (why do people do that?), I bet you that one of the furthest things from our mind is that 2016 now marks the 2016th year of the Lord, the year of His 2016th birthday—2016 years since He came into the world to save it.
Everyone and their mother has heard of the "Keep 'Christ' in 'Christmas'" campaign, right? It comes up every year in the form of videos, memes, snippy posts, and basically anything else that can transmit a message. I love Christ. Christmas is first and foremost a celebration of His birth. There is no logical reason to change the name of a holiday designed to set apart Christ's birth to a title that has the specific purpose of ignoring Christ. It's like changing MLK Day because not everyone's black. How would that make sense?
At the same time, while I've never understood why this debate even exists, I'll take it seriously long enough to say that I don't think Christ would be very happy with the spite some of His followers use when arguing the "Keep 'Christ' in 'Christmas'" point. I talk about this a lot, but I'll say it again: be firm, but be kind. As Casting Crowns says in their song Jesus, Friend of Sinners, "We've cut down people in your name, but the sword was never ours to swing." Christ doesn't want us to attack each other, even in His name. Defend, yes. Attack, no. Never.
But what about AD? A few years ago, it was decided by some important people, I'm sure, that BC and AD will no longer represent our measurement of time. We have now moved to the BCE (Before Common Era) and CE (Common Era) system. Those terms have been used for centuries, but they became the politically correct terms as of a little bit more recently. What does this change? The meridian of time is still marked by the same year, so the only change is the name. It's a direct and deliberate removal of Christ from a foundational piece of culture.
What I'm saying is that if we want to keep "Christ" in "Christmas," then we should keep "Dominus" in "Anno Domini." Christmas is a one-day event, but Anno Domini is a constant, year-long arrangement. Its removal, I think, has far more consistent impact than saying "Happy Holidays." We should never forget Christ, in Christmas or the new year. Christ should be a constant contact in our lives, regardless of the season or event. But watch the sleight of hand. Don't let one get stolen just because we're so focused on the other. God gave us two eyes for a reason; watch both. ;)
The new year is a great time to reflect on the old one and to look forward to the future. Let us remember to be kind and to be consistent, and let us keep a Christ-centered life as we go throughout the year—His year.
Here's one of my favorite Mormon Messages. It features random customers at a diner in NYC sharing their feelings on the new year and the Biblical account of Lot. Check it out!
No comments:
Post a Comment