The digraph 'ch' and silent 't' in phonology

It is after all the best time for many—to slow down a bit for rest and relaxation with merrymaking activities than hard reading and writing to be of our ways to continue! 

Here is a little clip on Huron Carole, a traditional Canadian character mapping for Christmas songs and something that I used to watch with my favorites, having also what is said to be of the ‘mutatis mutantis’:

It is then needless to mention that there is no logical ground for antagonism between <christ> and <christianity> on the epistemological account which we give of religious assertions for theist. 

Apparently, it is then of only the cross logical blunders with the takes that the vowel in ‘Christ’ should consist the diphthong (but monophthongs in ‘Christmas’) and the voiceless stop /t/ should be present in ‘Christ’ (but silent in ‘Christmas’) in relation to its voiceless fricative /s/.      
 
Furthermore, so far there appears to be no indication on the part of the variation in question as to whether it should or shouldn’t be renounced the allegiance silent ‘t’ to its constituent, in the light of the forgoing facts and considerations within phonology, this appears to be also that the orthodox view can never compel itself from being abandoning a generative hypothesis. Yet what is only sufficient to point out in here is that there is slight danger of being mislead by such hallowed hypotheses as if they were genuine like <ch> hypotheses as in a language like German.             
 
Thus, in English only the digraph <ch> is rule governed (rather than constrained for rhoticity or allophony) in this context as to its relation for the /k/ partner selection among those 4 choices of, namely:

with the /ʃ / (as in ‘champagne’),

with the /tʃ/ (as in ‘church’),

with the /dʒ/ (as in ‘Greenwich’), and

with the /k/ (as in ‘Christmas’).

Having at the same time no parallel with anything with German phonology, those in attendance of certain of this procedural and substantive issues relating to what /k/ phoneme has to do with <ch> digraph for complementary distribution is a simple but another issue than as traditionally having been mistaken for German <ch> analogy as in here: 

with the /ç/ after ä, ai, äu, e, ei, eu, i, ö, ü and consonants,

with the /x/ after a, au, o, u,

with the /k/ at the beginning of a word before a, o, u and consonants, and

with the <ch> that never occurs at the beginning of an original German word.

In English however, and in analytic phonology in particular, it is when sonorants exempts nasals but remains consonantal for a nominal complement, the by products are equal to liquids.

A further simple explanation on the principles in which /k/ phoneme encounters in complementary distribution is that-- 

wen ðə daɪɡrɑːf <ch> ɪn ə wɜːd ɪz fɒloʊd baɪ ə kɒnsənənt <r> ɒ <l>, ðə vɔɪsləs viːlər stɒp /k/ ɪz ɔːlweɪz ənd ɔːlmoʊst ðə foʊniːm fɒr <ch>.

So it is how, contrary to the myth and commonsense, the /k/ plays the role in <ch> character as in 'chloroform' for  /klɔːrəfɔːm/) and 'chronicle' for /krɒnɪkəl/, and that any exemption is thus, so to speak, being very rare, other than perhaps for voiceless velar fricative /x/ or voiced velar fricative /ɣ/ in some instances.

Thus when such liquids are served as a complement for <ch>, the only partner available to a selection, according to literature specific to English, is, interestingly, the /k/, with or without regard to law of entropy as to if it is still for clear trill or clear lateral liquid.