As I’ve been reading blogs and news articles lately, I’ve seen quite a few articles on the subject of breastfeeding. That’s kind of a strange observation, I know, but I’ve seen it as a recent theme in the media. I guess society is still negotiating whether or not it is appropriate to nurse a baby in public. This reminded me of an article I once saw in a Florida newspaper where the author discussed a fascinating situation involving Victoria's Secret.

Victoria's Secret became the target of breast-feeding activists this week after women in Racine, Wis., and Quincy, Mass., went into the popular women's lingerie store and were told they couldn't breastfeed their children on the sales floor.

It's hard to imagine that Victoria's Secret, of all places, could be anti-breast--or at least squeamish about the partial exposure of a woman's breast amid the racks of revealing peekaboo attire on sale.

But it happened. The result: Victoria's Secret was the target of a nationwide 'nurse-in' protest this past weekend called for by a group of angry breastfeeding women.

You can’t help but note the irony: Victoria's Secret, a company that has done so much to commodify the breast (along with pretty much every other aspect of a woman’s body), refused to allow women to breastfeed on their premises. As the article says, "Victoria's Secret, after all, is all about partial, and more-than-partial exposure of a woman's body." The company's advertising shows a lot more exposed breast than you are likely to see when a woman nurses her child. And what's wrong with a woman feeding her child in public?

Until about eleven years ago I had never thought much about breastfeeding. My mom, with still a little bit of hippie in her blood (you should see those early photos of her as a mother), raised five children and each of us nursed for at least a year or two. I was the second child to be born into the family and so, for at least five or six years of my life, I saw little sisters nursing. I thought nothing of it; it was as natural as breathing. Babies needed to eat, so mom fed them. If they needed to eat at home, mom fed them at home, and if they needed to eat when we were out, mom fed them in public. She was discreet about it, of course, but was certainly not ashamed to fed us when we need to be fed. There was nothing complicated about it.

I went looking for what Charles Spurgeon believed about Christmas and was kind of amused at the energy he brought to the discussion (e.g. “the greatest absurdities under heaven…”). Suffice it to say he did not mark Christmas day. And yet he celebrated the incarnation and all it means to the believer. Here’s the opening and closing of a sermon preached on December 23, 1855.

This is the season of the year when, whether we wish it or not, we are compelled to think of the birth of Christ. I hold it to be one of the greatest absurdities under heaven to think that there is any religion in keeping Christmas-day. There are no probabilities whatever that our Saviour Jesus Christ was born on that day, and the observance of it is purely of Popish origin; doubtless those who are Catholics have a right to hallow it, but I do not see how consistent Protestants can account it in the least sacred. However, I wish there were ten or a dozen Christmas-days in the year; for there is work enough in the world, and a little more rest would not hurt labouring people. Christmas-day is really a boon to us; particularly as it enables us to assemble round the family hearth and meet our friends once more. Still, although we do not fall exactly in the track of other people, I see no harm in thinking of the incarnation and birth of the Lord Jesus. We do not wish to be classed with those

“Who with more care keep holiday
The wrong, than others the right way.”

The old Puritans made a parade of work on Christmas-day, just to show that they protested against the observance of it. But we believe they entered that protest so completely, that we are willing, as their descendants, to take the good accidentally conferred by the day, and leave its superstitions to the superstitious.

…

Sweet Lord Jesus! thou whose goings forth were of old, even from everlasting, thou hast not left thy goings forth yet. Oh! that thou wouldst go forth this day, to cheer the faint, to help the weary, to bind up our wounds, to comfort our distresses! Go forth, we beseech thee, to conquer sinners, to subdue hard hearts-to break the iron gates of sinners’ lusts, and cut the iron bars of their sirs in pieces! O Jesus! go forth; and when thou goest forth, come thou to me! Am I a hardened sinner? Come thou to me; I want thee:

“Oh! let thy grace my heart subdue;
I would be led in triumph too;
A willing captive to my Lord,
To sing the honours of thy word.”

Poor sinner! Christ has not left going forth yet. And when he goes forth, recollect, he goes to Bethlehem. Have you a Bethlehem in your heart? Are you little? will go forth to you yet. Go home and seek him by earnest prayer. If you have been made to weep on account of sin, and think yourself too little to be noticed, go home, little one! Jesus comes to little ones; his goings forth were of old, and he is going forth now. He will come to your poor old house; he will come to your poor wretched heart; he will come, though you are in poverty, and clothed in rags, though you are destitute, tormented, and afflicted; he will come, for his goings forth have been of old from everlasting. Trust him, trust him, trust him; and he will go forth to abide in your heart for ever.

Back in 2005 I wrote about the seeming arbitrariness (but not the unimportance) of celebrating the birth of Christ on December 25. But even if that date wasn’t the actual calendar day of Jesus’ birth, it’s still interesting to understand why we have come to commemorate it then.

A few years ago Elisha Coffman posted a short article on Christianity Today’s Christian History site about how December 25th became the day. Here’s a good summary of what determined it:

December 25 already hosted two other related festivals: natalis solis invicti (the Roman “birth of the unconquered sun”), and the birthday of Mithras, the Iranian “Sun of Righteousness” whose worship was popular with Roman soldiers. The winter solstice, another celebration of the sun, fell just a few days earlier. Seeing that pagans were already exalting deities with some parallels to the true deity, church leaders decided to commandeer the date and introduce a new festival.

Western Christians first celebrated Christmas on December 25 in 336, after Emperor Constantine had declared Christianity the empire’s favored religion.

Elisha ends with a helpful thought addressing the concern that too many Christian Christmas traditions are “just paganism wrapped with a Christian bow.”

House sitters are in place. The dog has been taken to a kennel. The van is all gassed up. And we are on our way to Chattanooga, Tennessee to spend Christmas with my family. We made half the drive last night, getting as far as Dayton, Ohio. We’ve got 412 miles to go.

Here is an all-video A La Carte for you (just to be different):

Advancing the Gospel - I really appreciate the work done by Frontline Missions. Be sure to watch their new video introduction.

Australia - A friend sent me this—a little song telling you why you may want to visit Australia.

The Incarnation - Here is Odd Thomas with an excellent little spoken word piece all about the Incarnation.

Hallelujah Chorus - Here’s a fun version of the Hallelujah Chorus, done by Kuinerrarmiut Elitnaurviat 5th Grade class in Quinhagak, Alaska. I bet you can’t pronounce most of that…

Christmas in a Nutshell - This is a good video.

Let us never forget that the message of the Bible is addressed primarily to the mind, to the understanding. —D. Martyn Lloyd Jones