Do We Live In A Christian Country?

Do We Live In A Christian Country?

I have a confession to make: along with a significant number of others, I have for a number of years accepted a premise. That premise is this: that because we have become an increasingly secular society, that because only a minority of our citizens regularly attend a place of Christian worship and that because a significant number of those people who have come to live in this country share non-Christian belief systems, we have become a non-Christian Country.

It is understandable that we have fallen into this premise.

Since the mid-1960s, when there were huge cultural shifts in our nation, and the established church system in the UK began loosing its way, we have become, as a nation, far more secularly orientated.

Also, over the last 50 years, large numbers of people have come to live in the UK who do not have a Christian belief, but have beliefs that are totally non-Christian. These communities have grown not only in number, but in political and social power, to the point where our traditional lifestyle is now lived in the context of the opinions of these other beliefs.

So it is understandable that we have accepted the premise. It is, however, a false premise. It is a false premise because who we are as a country is not based solely on how many people go to church regularly, not on how many citizens have no belief, not on how many people have different beliefs.

Our whole way of life in the UK; our laws, our justice system, our democratic style of Government, our ethical beliefs, are based on traditional Judeo-Christian belief and have been for hundreds of years. This may not be a country where enormous amounts of people still attend church regularly, but we are a Christian based country.

What, therefore, are the implications of this?

In a nutshell, those of us who do share a Christian belief should not, any longer, accept that we now live in a non-Christian country. We should not accept that, increasingly, our society will devolve into a totally secular society, nor that we are going to evolve into a society where Christian belief becomes marginalized beyond other beliefs simply because they shout louder or because they instil fear of opposition into their fellow citizens via threats of orchestrated violence.

Rather, we should remind ourselves what the Christian mission truly is: to go into all the world and make disciples, to live our lives as Christ wants us to live them, and that sometimes that may involve turning over metaphorical tables in metaphorical temples and driving the metaphorical money-changers away.

How those metaphors work out in actuality has yet to be seen, but if we surrender the Christian legacy of this country too easily, we, or our children, or their children, may regret this, deeply.

So What Is Christmas All About?

Here's a clue: Christ-Mass.

Unsurprisingly, in our post-Christian, post-modern world, even that clue may remain unfathomable to some.

In most peoples' minds, December 25th means some or all of these things: Father Christmas (aka Santa Claus, aka St. Nichols aka Chris Tingel), reindeer, cards, holiday, decorations, lights, food, drink, presents, turkey, excess, indigestion, robins, snow and trees. At a push there may be a passing nod to something about a baby in a stable.

Father Christmass

Father Christmas is based on a real person, St. Nicholas, which explains his other name 'Santa Claus' which comes from the Dutch 'Sinterklaas'. Nicholas was a Christian leader from Myra (in modern-day Turkey) in the 4th century AD. He was very shy, and wanted to give money to poor people without them knowing about it. It is said that one day, he climbed the roof of a house and dropped a purse of money down the chimney. It landed in the stocking which a girl had put to dry by the fire! This may explain the belief that Father Christmas comes down the chimney and places gifts in children's stockings. When the Dutch settled what was to become New York, Sinterklaas became Santa Claus.

Christmas Trees

Some authorities consider the Christmas tree to be a survivor of pagan worship and trace it to Egypt and ancient Rome. Others say that the first real Christian Christmas tree dates back to 8th century Germany where it was used as a replacement for pagan worship. However, it was not until the beginning of the 19th century that the Christmas tree as we know it really became part of celebrations in England. Although Christmas trees were not unknown in England in Georgian times, In 1834, it was Queen Victoria's husband, Prince Albert of Saxony, who set an example and encouraged people to have a decorated tree at Christmas.

In the early 1840s the North American town of Fitzwilliam, N.H., was lining its Unitarian church with evergreen trees at Christmas time. They seem to have been undecorated, and were left up till late spring, when a bonfire celebrated their demise. By 1850, the Christmas tree had become fashionable in the eastern states. Until this time, it had been considered a quaint foreign custom.

But centuries ago in Great Britain, Druid priests used evergreens during mysterious winter solstice rituals. They also used holly and mistletoe as symbols of eternal life, and place evergreen branches over doors to keep away evil spirits.

Legend has it that Martin Luther began the tradition of decorating trees to celebrate Christmas. One Christmas Eve, around the year 1500, while walking through snowy woods, he saw a group of small evergreens with their branches dusted with snow. He was so taken with the sight that he brought a small fir tree indoors so he could share this with his children. He decorated it with candles in honour of Christ's birth.

Christmas Cards

The Christmas card is a Victorian creation, and was started by Sir Henry Cole who worked for the British Postal Service. He hired an artist named John Horsley. Between them they designed the first Christmas card which was a depiction of a Christmas scene framed in three panels. Underneath appeared the now famous phrase "A Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to You."

Christmas cards went on to be an essential part of Christmas and are now big business.

Christmas Gifts

On New Years' Day in ancient Rome, people gave each other gifts as a means of saying "Happy New Year". These might be gifts of food, or, depending upon the families wealth, more valuable gifts such as jewellery or pieces of gold and silver. With the coming of Christianity, the giving of gifts was established as being in honour of the gifts brought by the Three(?) Wise Men or Kings. When the Apostles brought the Gospel to Rome, the people learned of the Three Wise Men who came from the Orient to present gifts to the newborn King. From then on, the old custom was only slightly changed. The exchanging of presents remained, but now it was done in imitation of the Three Holy Kings.

Customs and dates for Christmas gift-giving vary from country to country, as do the supposed donors of the gifts. Depending upon the place, the gifts allegedly are delivered by elves, angels, the Christ Child, and even by Jesus' camel. They are provided by the Three Kings or Wise Men, or by Saint Nicholas or his derivative, Santa Claus. When the Dutch settled what was to become New York, they brought with them an annually reappearing Saint Nicholas or, as they called him, Sinterklaas. From there his name was altered to Santa Claus. In Brussels, it is a custom to give living gifts such as birds, pets, flowers. In the West Indies it is the custom to exchange or give hospitality, service or talent. Material gifts are not exchanged.

25th December?

The early Christian Church celebrated Christ's birth on various days; Jan 6th, April 21st, May 1st. In the 4th century Julius (337-352), Bishop of Rome, perhaps encouraged by the Emperor Constantine, declared December 25th to be the time to celebrate the birth of Christ. He probably favoured this date to counteract a very popular pagan holiday celebrating the rebirth of the sun. However, although the actual solstice is on 21st December, the 25th was as near as the crude instruments available to the ancient astronomers were able to place the it.

Will the real Christmas please stand up!

The Christmas season has long since degenerated into commercialism and material excess which has little or nothing to do with the birth of Christ or the celebration of Emmanuel, God with us; of God becoming Man. Indeed, in some parts of the UK, the corporate celebration of Christmas has been officially banned by Local Councils for fear of upsetting other faiths. Interestingly enough, one Local Council encouraged the Hindu celebration of Diwali (festival of Truth and Light) without any care of offending Christians. What hypocrisy!

So why do Christians persist in hanging on to the tattered remnants of this discredited season, this Winter Celebration? Is there a valid argument for saying that Christians should stop celebrating the traditional, atheistic, humanistic, pagan Christmas altogether? But if they do stop, there surely should be a time to remember the real birth of Christ?

Step forward a Campaign for the Real Christmas

In the biblical accounts of the birth of Jesus we read that the Shepherds were out on the hills with their sheep. They would not have been on the hills in December in the middle of Winter. It is also unlikely that the census, for which Mary and Joseph travelled to Bethlehem, would have been called in the middle of Winter. So if not December, when?

But let's paint in the background a little. The Jews celebrated a number of "feasts" during their year. One of these was the Feast of Tabernacles (Sukkoth). Beginning five days after Yom Kippur (The Day of Atonement) on the fifteenth of Tishri, Israel's seventh month (Usually around the end of September or beginning of October in the Gregorian Calendar), it is a drastic change from one of the most solemn holidays in the Jewish year to one of the most joyous. The word Sukkoth means "booths", and refers to the temporary dwellings that Jews are commanded to live in during this holiday, just as they did during the wilderness wanderings. The Feast of Tabernacles lasts for seven days and ends on the twenty-first Tishri.

Why is this significant? In John's Gospel the Apostle wrote these words (in English translation), "... and the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us". The original meaning of the wording was, "... and the Word was made flesh and tabernacled among us". In all likelihood, therefore, it was at the Feast of Tabernacles that Jesus was actually born. It may also explain why Bethlehem was crowded; everyone was there to celebrate the Feast.

We have, therefore a reasonable indication of the true time of Jesus' birth. Not 25th December, but earlier in the year, around Autumn; the end of September or the beginning of October.

Realistically, it is extremely unlikely that the traditional celebration of Christmas on the 25th December is ever going to be "reclaimed". So it might make sense that a new celebration of Jesus' birth be instituted by Christians to coincide with the Feast of the Tabernacles, thus giving the Birth of Jesus the spiritual and Christian, prominence it deserves.

PS - it wasn't a stable either, and the 'Kings' weren't there just after the birth, neither was...... well, never mind for now.

A Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to You

Fame - I'm Going To Live Forever....

In the 60's, when Andy Warhol made his interesting prediction - that in the future we would all be famous for 15 minutes - we had, as a society, begun throwing off the perceived shackles of the post war culture and belief systems.

It was a time of, "if it feels good - do it" "let it all hang out" and "if you can't be with the one you love, love the one you're with". Traditional moral and religious restraints were cast to one side in a tidal wave of post-modern thinking about, who we were, what we should be allowed to do, with whom we should be allowed to do it and the very nature of truth and belief.

Paradoxically, the desire for someone or something greater than ourselves remained. With the intelligentsia, and certain sections of the established church, declaring that, 'God is dead', a vacuum formed. As the orthodox Judaeo-Christian religious foundation to our society was dug up and carried away by the barrow load, a rainfall of different beliefs and ideologies soon flooded into the empty diggings; New Age mysticism, rights of the individual, freedom of expression without responsibility, sexual freedom with no thought for tomorrow, feminism, freedom of abortion, consumerism and much more.

However, the need to worship something 'higher' is built into the human spirit, and over the decades following the 60's this need would begin to find its fulfilment in the worship of the 'famous', the 'celebrity'.

Of course, famous people, those who achieved greatness, were born great, or had greatness thrust upon them, have always been among us. National Leaders, Soldiers, Politicians, Royalty, Rogues, Desperados, Adventurers, Villains, Film Stars, Sports Stars, Musicians, Footballers etc., made obvious candidates. Usually these people were high profile, maybe rich and powerful, often able to manipulate the publicity machine, or have it manipulated for them, to reach the dizzy heights of fame.

So we find, just a few years into the 21st Century, a curious situation. In the general clamouring to find objects to satisfy our need to worship, almost anyone will do in this devotion to the cult of celebrity, and the sensation hungry media, especially television has become the new evangelist. G.K. Chesterton observed, 'When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing, they believe in anything'.

Fueled by the ever growing pressure of ratings, TV has created its very own Frankenstein's Monster; the TV Celebrity. Now, given a modicum of media coverage, anyone can be 'famous'. Gardeners, airport security officers, topless models, murders, footballers, prostitutes, driving test failures, bus drivers. Most, if not all, quite ordinary people doing whatever they choose to do, who have been sucked into the TV machine and transmitted to millions. What is even more remarkable is that those millions, generally, deem the fact that they have seen these people on TV and enough to bestow on them the accolade of, 'celebrity'.

And so the wheel begins turning with a horrible momentum. Because they are now personalities, they appear on TV and the other media at even greater regularity. This reinforces their status, and soon their opinions on the state of the world is sought, and they appear on chat shows, the news, and in previously serious debate programmes, thus building their pedestals ever higher. We are invited to share their lives through magazines and the Internet. Vicariously, we go to their weddings, sit in their bedrooms, watch the birth of the babies, know the perfume they use, the toothpaste in their bathrooms and almost every other intimate detail of their lives.

Thus the cult of celebrity bestows on its worshippers the ultimate accolade - intimacy. We 'know' these people, we have become part of their social circle; we are now rubbing shoulders with the famous by association. And there lies the power of the cult of personality. We want to worship, and we want to feel something in return; to feel good, to feel blessed, to feel the hand of some god on our heads, and in feeling that we are satisfied.

As devoted worshippers and disciples of Celebrities, we want not only to know them, but we want to be like them. So the purveyors of fame eagerly sell us the trappings of fame. We buy the products they use, holiday in the countries they holiday in, buy the clothes they wear (or at least expensive, but inferior copies), adopt their hair-styles, believe what they believe. As we do this the circle is complete. Their fame increases and our devotion becomes evermore intense; well for 15 minutes anyway.

Fame, though, is a transient beast. No human can maintain the life required to receive adoring worship for great periods of time. For one thing, we are all mortal and disappear in the fullness of years. After all, there will always be another along in a minute; someone else whose teeth shine brighter, whose hair is glossier, whose breasts are larger, who can kick a ball harder, who can sing more sweetly. Someone who is younger.

So what happens to the post-famous, the now un-famous? Perhaps they may appear on TV shows where they can debase themselves, like sacrifices before the braying crowd, in the hope of rekindling past glories in the hope that somebody out there still loves them. They may retire to a rich and idle empty life in a tax haven abroad, or perhaps they'll become PR Managers and run agencies for the next phenomenon who comes along.

And what of the devotee? What of those who have lain prostrate at the foot of the alter? They'll flit from one personality to another, like moths to flames, ever seeking but never finding a true outlet for their inner selves; their empty inner selves.

....Baby remember my name.......Please!

Victims of Consensus

Question: What is the purpose of national government?
Answer: To know how to best serve the people for whom they are their elected representatives, and to then serve them.

At least that is probably what the answer should be..... if only!

Are you aware that those who govern us are in a continual struggle for our hearts and minds? The answer you would probably give is, 'yes of course I am. Every political statement I hear or read is a mix of truth, lie, misdirection and propaganda', and of course this is true. However, despite the fact that those who govern us, our elected representatives, are supposed to be our 'humble servants', the truth of the matter is that they are engaged in a constant war of attrition which seeks to continually persuade us that everything they do, propose, suggest, think, is right and that we must be persuaded to fall in line with it; whether higher taxes, lower wages, military action, etc. To do this they must ensure that their citizens should not think too deeply about such matters, should not engage too deeply in the debate, should not oppose the leaderships' rationale. In other words, we should not think for ourselves.

But do we want to be concerned with such matters? It is extremely important that we are.

Modern history offers us a prime example of what can happen when a population, apparently unable or unwilling, to think for itself and engage in the political processes of its Government, allows it's Government to carry out atrocities that, many decades later, still fill people with horror.

I am of course talking about the German Nazi party's extermination of millions of Jews, Poles and Gypsies during the course of the Second World War. Although there were many factors involved; severe financial breakdown and national racism being just two, the result was that the German population stood aside while its own citizens were first persecuted, scapegoated, ghettoised and then systematically exterminated. Shamefully, whilst this was going on, even the German Church turned the other cheek; the one body of people whom you would hope would stand against such evil, did not do so.

There were or two exceptions, and history records their bravery, and in some situations, their executions.

How did this happen? It happened because a consensus was reached within the population that what their Government was doing was right and in the best interests of its citizens.

There are a number of varied and complicated psychological and sociological processes involved for this to happen within a population. Malcolm Gladwell, author of, The Tipping Point, has shown that when something new appears on the horizon, be it philosophical, ideological or socialogical, there is a period of time when this new idea germinates. A period of time when, albeit slowly, the new idea gains a foothold, perhaps through active promotion, i.e. media advertising, televised propaganda, TV, Radio, Internet, Film, public promotion, debate, etc. But eventually the 'tipping point' is reached when the acceptance of this new idea cascades into the public consciousness, and almost overnight, or so it seems, a majority of the population find themselves agreeing with the new idea for no other reason than the common belief that, 'everyone believes that....', and thus it becomes, in sort, a self-fulfilling prophecy. Once this tipping point is reached, the promoters of the new idea can push ahead because it has reached consensus.

Take, for example, the global warming debate. Despite enormous scientific evidence in opposition to the basic premise, a consensus seems to have been reached that human produced CO2 is the prime cause of global warming.

Once consensus has been reached, it becomes more and more difficult for anyone to stand opposed to that consensus. They will find that their voice is increasingly isolated, their opinion increasingly marginalised, and that the consensus is less and less willing to bear with such opposition.

So how does a Government effectively persuade its citizens towards this tipping point? Of course, different Governments use different methods; terror, oppression, fear, reasoned argument, debate, democratic process, etc. The danger is that, within a democratic process, there is always the possibility that the population might be swayed to an opposing, undesired opinion. One way to deal with this would be to remove the opposition. That raises the question as to whether the democratic process is also removed at the same time. One other way to limit the rise of opposing argument is to reduced the ability of the population to engage in reasoned debate; to remove the populations' ability to reason out the arguments, to reach a decision based on intellectual effort; in other words, to think for itself. But how does a Government thus reduce a population's ability?

One way would be to, over a period, 'dumb down' the population, reducing the ability of that population to think for themselves; to form opinions based on reasoned argument, philosophical or religious ethical ideology. This could lead to a situation where the Government of a country can more easily persuade a population, or the majority of a population, along a course of its own choosing, to consensus, without the danger of that population raising serious objection.

So, is the British population being dumbed down? It's a question which merits consideration. Universities report that increasingly, entrants display the lack of adequate literacy and numeracy skills. Our school system has been systematically pulled apart since the introduction of the comprehensive education system, and certain governments have all but destroyed Grammar schools. Add to that the apparent goal of our state owned broadcasting system to rot our brains with a diet of 'reality TV' and 'celebrity' led opinion. All of which, despite the apparent increase in 'A' Level results, may be leading to a generation less able to truly think for itself.

It is vital that we retain the ability to think for ourselves. If we do not, we are in danger of becoming victims of consensus, victims of a non-intellectual mob-rule that may see some of us swimming against the stream of majority opinion.

Remember, what is popular is not always right, and what is right is not always popular.

Makes you think, doesn't it?