A piece I wrote on the Faith Journeys website.
It's the early 60s. The Beatles were the new kids on the Merseysound block, I had just started an engineering apprenticeship and had met my first Christian. Of course, I didn't know he was a Christian. As far as I was concerned he was a religious nut who blathered on and on about God and Jesus. However, although I didn't realise it at the time, meeting him put my feet firmly on the faith path, and my first destination was just over the horizon.
Two years later he had nagged me into submission and I went along with him, and a whole coachload of young people, to hear Billy Graham at Earls Court, London. It is 1966, and reluctantly I find myself standing in front of the charismatic American saying the sinner's prayer. The Holy Spirit had fished another one from the waves.
Going to the small Brethren hall for the first time was a cultural shock. I managed a few weeks, but I didn't own a suit, and I felt uncomfortable in this weird environment. I left and joined the young conservatives (not such a cultural shock!) learned guitar, formed a folk duo and managed to avoid God stuff for a year. But the Holy Spirit still had his fish-hook in me and began reeling me in. The folk duo split and the attraction of the Young Conservatives faded. So after a year of invites to a young people Bible study, I RSVP'd a, yes, and got back on the faith-track.
It was at that Bible study I began to learn what being a Christian was about. It was also the place where I met my future wife,Jan. At the time of writing (2010) we have been married 38 years! Nice one God!
The next few years saw me involved in a coffee-bar evangelistic team, a couple of local churches, getting engaged, an outreach rock band, getting married, buying a house and then.....
..... all our furniture is stacked around us. We're sleeping on the floor of an old house in Birmingham. Our house is sold, the bridge is burnt and we're at Bible College. How did we get here? Another destination along the path, and this path is straight up a really steep learning curve. The journey along this bit of the path was, and remains, 30 years later, a priceless spiritual experience at the feet of men and women of God who led us to places we would never have visited in a local church situation.
Faith in God is easier when things are going well. Real faith grows when you have nowhere to turn, except toward God. Many times at College we find ourselves praying that our Father will meet our different needs. Money to buy food; we never go hungry, healings, guidance, spiritual insight, courage.
The water of a number of different jobs and different churches flows under the bridges over the next few years. We now have a Son, Joel. We work together at a Christian outdoor centre and then we move to the North-West, to the Wirral, and I work for a few different Christian charities. In the local church we belong to, we are involved in home-group leadership, diaconate, worship group, worship leading, preaching, teaching, sunday school. The steep learning curve in Birmingham pays dividends.
Then the local church falls on hard times. There are three huge leadership splits and traumas. We wonder should we stay. God says stay. We stay, but often find ourselves caught in the middle as people take sides. But from the middle, sometimes, the view is clearer. We are able to see things others don't, but it doesn't prevent the traumas, but God does reveal some of the spiritual truth behind what is happening. At the end of it all God says it is time to go. We join with the ex-Pastor building a new fellowship; a fellowship which will do things differently. The difference lasts a few months. It isn't working. We leave.
But now our pathway starts to lead in a strange direction. For the first time in decades we realise our path is leading away from the institutionalised church we have been used to, have been an integral part of, and could never imagine being outside of. And this is where we find ourselves now, still continuing along the path of faith, still following Jesus, still fellowshipping with other Christians, but not aligned to a building, denomination or institution. We are openly involved with the body of Christ - which is what 'Church' really is - but not behind brick walls, not under some man-made idea of 'church'.
The journey continues. Already there have been new and interesting destinations, but the ultimate destination is still over the horizon. But in the dark sky of this fallen world, its glow is now brighter as each day passes, and we keep our eyes fixed in that one direction. End of the path? The New Jerusalem!
Sunday, 29 August 2010
Sunday, 2 May 2010
Of Course It Isn't!
Having been made redundant three times in the last 22 years, and had fairly long periods out of work as a result, I have a reasonable knowledge of the disagreeable experience that is known as 'signing on'.
However, I don't want to dwell on the debilitating and humiliating nature of this experience. I want to look at one aspect of the mechanism which kicks in to action once you do sign on; the mechanism of re-training.
The subject came up whilst talking to a friend who is currently out of work and being processed through this re-training mechanism, and we both thought it would be a useful insight into the current policies of dealing with the unemployed, through the eyes of someone who is immersed in it. So here, in his own words, is his experience.
...............................
I have found most government courses a complete waste of time. Each time I have to attend one I think to myself "Is this going to be another one of those useless government schemes" and then I think, "Be positive, this one could be a good one and hopefully I will get permanent employment through it". But no surprise it ends up the same as the majority.
One thing that annoys me is when you first register with these schemes you are told that there will be work placements available and the possibility of employment at the end of the course. But in reality they don’t have enough work placements for everyone and the employers who use these schemes very rarely offer employment as it suits them financially to take on another placement. This inevitably leads to the majority of the unemployed having to spend several months going to the organisations offices where they have to spend the day from 9 am till 4 pm Monday to Friday job searching. This consists of searching through the internet and the local freebies. Occasionally they buy the Liverpool Echo on Thursdays.
Now with the unemployment situation the way it is, there are very few vacancies and sometimes they are repeated on more than one occasion so as to make the job situation look better than it is. This occurs mostly on job centre sites.
As this to me is a complete waste of time as I already job search on my own initiative I do not see the point of going to a special building to do the same but to also spend the rest of the day bored stiff as there is nothing more to do. The atmosphere in these government scheme offices is very depressing and it is obvious that a portion of these people are not interested in finding work as it suits them to be supported by the government and to spend the day doing whatever they please.
The government thinks up these schemes so they look as if they are doing something positive to reduce unemployment by keeping the numbers down as when one is on one of these schemes they are not classed as unemployed. But in reality these schemes are a sham as they are run by incompetents who are only interested in getting sufficient numbers to fill their quotas and keep themselves in a job.
Of the several courses I have been on I have only been on two good ones. One was working in a council library helping customers with any problems they may have while using the computers. At the end of the course there was no vacancy as the local council decided to use another government scheme and as that particular scheme did not have enough people to supply this service throughout the borough I volunteered to carry on for over a year till the council sorted itself out but it had no intentions of offering employment as it was financially better for them to keep using the government schemes I enjoyed the work and only offered to work on a voluntary basis because the staff in the library were really nice people.
The other good course I was on was working for the NHS as a clinic clerk. They were very happy with my work and the Section Head suggested I apply for a vacancy that had arisen. I did so and the interview went very well but unfortunately I was in competition with two very qualified applicants. My section head told me that for all they were more qualified the interviewers preferred me but the management would question their choice.
...............................
There really isn't much to add. That training courses are used to remove people from the unemployment figures is well known. It is also true that these training courses do sometimes lead to people gaining useful employment. However, over-riding this all, it would seem that in many situations, it is more about massaging figures and ticking target boxes rather than any real attempts to get people back to work.
But, of course, training courses don't create jobs. Ticking boxes doesn't create jobs. Only a growing economy creates jobs, and that isn't happening at the moment, nor does it look likely to happen in the near future.
However, I don't want to dwell on the debilitating and humiliating nature of this experience. I want to look at one aspect of the mechanism which kicks in to action once you do sign on; the mechanism of re-training.
The subject came up whilst talking to a friend who is currently out of work and being processed through this re-training mechanism, and we both thought it would be a useful insight into the current policies of dealing with the unemployed, through the eyes of someone who is immersed in it. So here, in his own words, is his experience.
...............................
I have found most government courses a complete waste of time. Each time I have to attend one I think to myself "Is this going to be another one of those useless government schemes" and then I think, "Be positive, this one could be a good one and hopefully I will get permanent employment through it". But no surprise it ends up the same as the majority.
One thing that annoys me is when you first register with these schemes you are told that there will be work placements available and the possibility of employment at the end of the course. But in reality they don’t have enough work placements for everyone and the employers who use these schemes very rarely offer employment as it suits them financially to take on another placement. This inevitably leads to the majority of the unemployed having to spend several months going to the organisations offices where they have to spend the day from 9 am till 4 pm Monday to Friday job searching. This consists of searching through the internet and the local freebies. Occasionally they buy the Liverpool Echo on Thursdays.
Now with the unemployment situation the way it is, there are very few vacancies and sometimes they are repeated on more than one occasion so as to make the job situation look better than it is. This occurs mostly on job centre sites.
As this to me is a complete waste of time as I already job search on my own initiative I do not see the point of going to a special building to do the same but to also spend the rest of the day bored stiff as there is nothing more to do. The atmosphere in these government scheme offices is very depressing and it is obvious that a portion of these people are not interested in finding work as it suits them to be supported by the government and to spend the day doing whatever they please.
The government thinks up these schemes so they look as if they are doing something positive to reduce unemployment by keeping the numbers down as when one is on one of these schemes they are not classed as unemployed. But in reality these schemes are a sham as they are run by incompetents who are only interested in getting sufficient numbers to fill their quotas and keep themselves in a job.
Of the several courses I have been on I have only been on two good ones. One was working in a council library helping customers with any problems they may have while using the computers. At the end of the course there was no vacancy as the local council decided to use another government scheme and as that particular scheme did not have enough people to supply this service throughout the borough I volunteered to carry on for over a year till the council sorted itself out but it had no intentions of offering employment as it was financially better for them to keep using the government schemes I enjoyed the work and only offered to work on a voluntary basis because the staff in the library were really nice people.
The other good course I was on was working for the NHS as a clinic clerk. They were very happy with my work and the Section Head suggested I apply for a vacancy that had arisen. I did so and the interview went very well but unfortunately I was in competition with two very qualified applicants. My section head told me that for all they were more qualified the interviewers preferred me but the management would question their choice.
...............................
There really isn't much to add. That training courses are used to remove people from the unemployment figures is well known. It is also true that these training courses do sometimes lead to people gaining useful employment. However, over-riding this all, it would seem that in many situations, it is more about massaging figures and ticking target boxes rather than any real attempts to get people back to work.
But, of course, training courses don't create jobs. Ticking boxes doesn't create jobs. Only a growing economy creates jobs, and that isn't happening at the moment, nor does it look likely to happen in the near future.
Sunday, 28 February 2010
The Government would like to apologise but 1984 is running a little late.
In the UK, we now live in the most comprehensively surveilled society ever. It is something even George Orwell didn't fully foresee. In his book, The Road To Southend Pier, Ross Clark sets himself the challenge to travel from his home in East Anglia to the end of the eponymous pier, avoiding, if possible, the all-seeing cameras which now pervade our lives; a journey of about 50 miles.
He fails, quite comprehensively. And he fails because it is now almost impossible to go about out daily lives, our innocent daily lives, with being caught on CCTV many times.
Of course, we are told that crime is being prevented, and criminals are being caught as a result of this increased intrusion into our private lives. Whenever questions are raised as to the efficacy of the burgoning CCTV culture, the grainy, low quality footage of Jamie Bulger's kidnap is rolled out and paraded as a trophy to assure us all. But unfortunately, it is not reassuring. If the only piece of evidence of the effectiveness of increased CCTV is video footage from February 1993, then we are in deep trouble.
The very fact the whole TV programs are now being produced, for our delight and delectation, from CCTV footage, is proof, surely, that CCTV is not reducing crime. Rather it has made thugs, vandals, and the anti-social into TV stars, albeit anonymous ones because they are rarely caught.
So, what then is the point of all this expensive hi-tech equipment? Well, it is proving its worth, but not in catching thugs and criminals, but in reaping large financial rewards for local councils who are using it to catch motorists parking illegally. Yes, you will be pleased to know that while many of our city centres have become virtual no-go zones at certain times, the forces of law and order and catching errant car parkers. It makes it all worth while! Doesn't it? Well, no it doesn't.
Why doesn't it? As a society we are being routinely spied upon by our government, and its various agencies. Those who were traditionally there to protect us, are now those who are watching our every move, not for our good, but because we are all now regarded as potential criminals, and worse, as potential and possible terrorists.
Section 44 of the Anti-Terrorism Act is now, routinely and on a daily basis being evoked against the innocent citizens of the UK for all manner of minor things. For instance, point a camera at a building in London, and there is a very good chance that you will be approached by the forces of law and order and challenged under Section 44. This is happening regularly. Watch this video from the BBC and wonder what is happening to this country. You will note in the video that the Police Officer states that they had stopped lots of people.
So, next time you are snapping a few photos for the family album, be aware that your government, and the forces of law and order, will now be regarding you as a possible terrorist.
The final irony in all this is that anyone planning a terrorist attack has no need to wander the streets with a camera. They have only to go online and all the major cities can be viewed in excellent detail, with photo-quality images and in some cases, stunning 3D, on the internet.
Expect the government to announce very soon that, because anyone using the Internet could be a potential terrorist, it will be monitoring Internet usage on a daily basis.
Oh, wait a minute, they already do that.
He fails, quite comprehensively. And he fails because it is now almost impossible to go about out daily lives, our innocent daily lives, with being caught on CCTV many times.
Of course, we are told that crime is being prevented, and criminals are being caught as a result of this increased intrusion into our private lives. Whenever questions are raised as to the efficacy of the burgoning CCTV culture, the grainy, low quality footage of Jamie Bulger's kidnap is rolled out and paraded as a trophy to assure us all. But unfortunately, it is not reassuring. If the only piece of evidence of the effectiveness of increased CCTV is video footage from February 1993, then we are in deep trouble.
The very fact the whole TV programs are now being produced, for our delight and delectation, from CCTV footage, is proof, surely, that CCTV is not reducing crime. Rather it has made thugs, vandals, and the anti-social into TV stars, albeit anonymous ones because they are rarely caught.
So, what then is the point of all this expensive hi-tech equipment? Well, it is proving its worth, but not in catching thugs and criminals, but in reaping large financial rewards for local councils who are using it to catch motorists parking illegally. Yes, you will be pleased to know that while many of our city centres have become virtual no-go zones at certain times, the forces of law and order and catching errant car parkers. It makes it all worth while! Doesn't it? Well, no it doesn't.
Why doesn't it? As a society we are being routinely spied upon by our government, and its various agencies. Those who were traditionally there to protect us, are now those who are watching our every move, not for our good, but because we are all now regarded as potential criminals, and worse, as potential and possible terrorists.
Section 44 of the Anti-Terrorism Act is now, routinely and on a daily basis being evoked against the innocent citizens of the UK for all manner of minor things. For instance, point a camera at a building in London, and there is a very good chance that you will be approached by the forces of law and order and challenged under Section 44. This is happening regularly. Watch this video from the BBC and wonder what is happening to this country. You will note in the video that the Police Officer states that they had stopped lots of people.
So, next time you are snapping a few photos for the family album, be aware that your government, and the forces of law and order, will now be regarding you as a possible terrorist.
The final irony in all this is that anyone planning a terrorist attack has no need to wander the streets with a camera. They have only to go online and all the major cities can be viewed in excellent detail, with photo-quality images and in some cases, stunning 3D, on the internet.
Expect the government to announce very soon that, because anyone using the Internet could be a potential terrorist, it will be monitoring Internet usage on a daily basis.
Oh, wait a minute, they already do that.
Sunday, 10 January 2010
Football, Beer and Health Equality
A few years ago I had a conversation, at a local healthy living exhibition, about how to get the health message across to men. The person I was chatting with, apart from being a friend, was also a trained nurse and a health promotion professional.
She had come to the conclusion that holding events, such as the one we were at, was simply not working; men didn’t, by and large, attend and were showing no real interest in their health. The conclusion was that, almost evangelically, the message had to be taken out into the ‘market place’. The market place was broadly defined as football grounds and pubs. In other words, places that the target demographic were likely to be, in large numbers, on a regular basis.
Now, to put this in a geographic context, the demographic in question is situated in the North-West of England where, for a majority of men, football and beer are two of their most important life-aspects. Conversations around healthy eating, the benefits of vegetables, the danger of excessive cholesterol and a regime of regular exercise are fairly rare, and often viewed as deeply un-manly and possible even somewhat feminine.
Imagine my surprise when, having reached that certain dangerous age of such previously unmentionable subjects as furring arteries, expanding waistlines and heart-attacks, that upon enquiring of my GP whether I could have a Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) blood test I was refused.
Now, here was a presenting bloke actually interested in health prevention. I was questioned as to whether there was a reason for asking for the test; had I any symptoms that were worrying me? I hadn’t. Did I know the test was not conclusive? I did. So could I have the test? No.
Over the next 2 years I broached the subject two more times, and the answer was always the same. If you have no symptoms, you can’t have a PSA blood test. In other words, unless the medical profession thought there was a good chance that you might already have Prostate Cancer, you were not going to get a test.
So much for preventive medicine in the male population.
Compare this to health prevention in the female population. Breast screening is now an almost universally accepted option as are cervical smears and even, in young girls, cervical cancer inoculations (but that is a whole other issue). All these measures are now an integral part of female health prevention.
But for men?
So eventually it came to the point where, nearly 3 years after that first conversation with my Doctor, I was discussing another health issue with my GP Nurse, and the PSA subject came up again. I was asked the same questions and gave the same answers. I then asked the nurse whether that, If I was a woman, and I asked you for a cervical smear, would I get one? She thought for a few seconds, and admitted that, yes, I would. She immediately wrote me in for a PSA test. The results were negative, and all is fine.
However, the point of this is not my health. It is to do with the reluctance to offer equal preventative health options to men as to women. Simple as that. As far as I can tell, this inequality still broadly exists. It is not good enough to say that men are just not interested in their own health. It is the job of the health service to be far more pro-active in reaching out to the male population, especially where it is more difficult to connect to that population, with preventative care.
We cannot really talk about equality and diversity, etc., and ignore such an outrageous situation. Men’s health and Women’s health are equally important, other equality means nothing.
She had come to the conclusion that holding events, such as the one we were at, was simply not working; men didn’t, by and large, attend and were showing no real interest in their health. The conclusion was that, almost evangelically, the message had to be taken out into the ‘market place’. The market place was broadly defined as football grounds and pubs. In other words, places that the target demographic were likely to be, in large numbers, on a regular basis.
Now, to put this in a geographic context, the demographic in question is situated in the North-West of England where, for a majority of men, football and beer are two of their most important life-aspects. Conversations around healthy eating, the benefits of vegetables, the danger of excessive cholesterol and a regime of regular exercise are fairly rare, and often viewed as deeply un-manly and possible even somewhat feminine.
Imagine my surprise when, having reached that certain dangerous age of such previously unmentionable subjects as furring arteries, expanding waistlines and heart-attacks, that upon enquiring of my GP whether I could have a Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) blood test I was refused.
Now, here was a presenting bloke actually interested in health prevention. I was questioned as to whether there was a reason for asking for the test; had I any symptoms that were worrying me? I hadn’t. Did I know the test was not conclusive? I did. So could I have the test? No.
Over the next 2 years I broached the subject two more times, and the answer was always the same. If you have no symptoms, you can’t have a PSA blood test. In other words, unless the medical profession thought there was a good chance that you might already have Prostate Cancer, you were not going to get a test.
So much for preventive medicine in the male population.
Compare this to health prevention in the female population. Breast screening is now an almost universally accepted option as are cervical smears and even, in young girls, cervical cancer inoculations (but that is a whole other issue). All these measures are now an integral part of female health prevention.
But for men?
So eventually it came to the point where, nearly 3 years after that first conversation with my Doctor, I was discussing another health issue with my GP Nurse, and the PSA subject came up again. I was asked the same questions and gave the same answers. I then asked the nurse whether that, If I was a woman, and I asked you for a cervical smear, would I get one? She thought for a few seconds, and admitted that, yes, I would. She immediately wrote me in for a PSA test. The results were negative, and all is fine.
However, the point of this is not my health. It is to do with the reluctance to offer equal preventative health options to men as to women. Simple as that. As far as I can tell, this inequality still broadly exists. It is not good enough to say that men are just not interested in their own health. It is the job of the health service to be far more pro-active in reaching out to the male population, especially where it is more difficult to connect to that population, with preventative care.
We cannot really talk about equality and diversity, etc., and ignore such an outrageous situation. Men’s health and Women’s health are equally important, other equality means nothing.
Wednesday, 23 December 2009
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.
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.
Sunday, 20 December 2009
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
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!
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)