So, Christmas has now begun. At least, that is the sort of statement that will keep liturgical pedants happy whilst simultaneously confusing everyone else.
The Christmas season begins on Christmas Day (or late Christmas Eve, if you really want to push it) and lasts for twelve days until Epiphany (6 January) – which is when the Magi first come on the scene. And that, for many people, is another surprise: the so-called Wise Men weren’t present with the shepherds following the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem, but came when he was probably a toddler around the age of two. Furthermore, and just to confuse matters, the Eastern Churches celebrate Christmas at Epiphany.
So what? Well, this bit of pedantry is really just a way into the weary observation that now Christmas Day and Boxing Day have passed by, it is time for the newspapers to identify ‘loony Christmas’ stories from the last few days. And it is the Mail on Sunday that strikes my own eye first – mainly because I am partly quoted in it.
Isn’t it bizarre that this great champion of ‘political-correctness-gone-mad’ and ‘Britain-ceasing-be-Christian’ and ‘immigrants-are-taking-over-the-country’ and ‘what is happening to marriage and morality’ wildness should also be the organ that hysterically has the moral giant Piers Morgan going through a Las Vegas ‘wedding’ to Paris Hilton? Doesn’t the editor see the contradictions that run criss-cross through his paper?
Anyway, the story today is about the British Transport Police replacing the word ‘Christmas’ with ‘Holiday’ in their punned posters aimed at reassuring the London public that police will be working in force over the next couple of weeks. The text of the poster is fine, but clearly someone decided to change ‘Christmas’ to ‘Holiday’ in the main blurb: ‘Holiday presence’. Now it just doesn’t work: ‘Christmas presence’ (punning ‘presents’) works, but the BTP’s change of wording doesn’t.
Apparently, it was the police’s marketing department that decided on the word change. The reason is simply (as I put it in the quotation I gave them) bonkers. A spokesperson is quoted in the Mail explaining the change as follows:
It is just to make the message non-denominational so that it applies to everyone and so that people who don’t buy into Christmas don’t feel excluded.
Where do you start with that nonsense? Whoever said that clearly doesn’t understand the meaning of ‘denomination’ or the difference between Christian ‘denominations’ (Methodists, Baptists, etc.) and different ‘faiths’ or ‘religions’.
I hate to side with the Mail, but this story does reinforce the point that it is not ‘faith communities’ that have problems and tensions, but the silly secular humanists who ignorantly seem to think they can patronisingly help the rest of us out by reducing ‘offence’ and being ‘inclusive’. All they succeed in doing is making themselves look stupid and the rest of us cross at their ignorance.
Let’s make this clear: I knw of no Muslim or Hindu or Jew who wants to drop ‘Christmas’ in favour of some bland alternative. They are not offended. What they do find offensive is the patronising stupidity of people who think it is reasonable or helpful to empty a Christian festival of its Christianity on the grounds that people who believe differently will be offended. Would they suggest that Muslims should drop ‘Eid’ from their celebrations in case Christians get cross?
There are exceptions to this nonsense. But it would be enormously helpful if local authorities, the police and other public bodies would insist that all their employees did some training in order to become religiously literate. They then wouldn’t do silly things like the British Transport Police has just done. It would also stop giving organs like the Mail an excuse to sound off on ‘PC gone mad’ stories.
Now, back to celebrating Christmas…
December 27, 2009 at 5:51 pm
For the second time this year (the first was Martin Samuel’s piece on his Uncle Sid’s funeral) I find myself in substantial agreement with something that was printed in the Daily Mail. Dame Edna would call the phenomenon “spooky”…
December 27, 2009 at 9:59 pm
But it would be enormously helpful if local authorities, the police and other public bodies would insist that all their employees did some training in order to become religiously literate.
Shouldn’t this happen at school?
December 28, 2009 at 8:05 am
But it does tell you what has happened to Britain under the Blair-Brown government: a climate of growing hostility to public expressions of Christianity from those in power, alongside politically inspired cravenness toward Islam. For all that Son-of-the-Manse Brown prattles about ‘my values’ (whatever they are), I see no evidence that he is personally a Christian, a churchgoer or one who prays. He’s just another secular leftist in the European mould who wants to redistribute a rather smaller pie than the one he inherited.
Obama used similar rhetoric to get elected, but nobody believes him now.
December 28, 2009 at 9:05 am
My impression that Brown is really a secular figure is supported by this comment from 2007 by a Scottish academic:
“But Dr Doug Gay, a Church of Scotland minister who lectures in the Divinty Department at Glasgow University has just done a study of Gordon Brown’s public pronouncements on religion, and come to a rather different conclusion. “There is almost nothing from the Calvinist tradition about Brown’s public persona,” Dr Gay says. “He relies almost entirely on the vocabulary of the Scottish Enlightenment. He speaks of churches only as important social actors in a secular society. He has privatised his faith and will be a much more secular figure than Blair was.”"
So when the left take up semi-Christian rhetoric (as Obama did last year), it’s never about marriage, family, sexual morality or abortion (these are no go areas for the left, who brokered in the social revolution in these areas) but usually about redistribution of wealth and a postmodern preoccupation with ‘compensation’ for past ‘injustice’ to ethnic minorities/women/gays etc.
It is telling that Gordon Brown is one of the strongest political supporters of abortion in the UK – as was his predecessor Blair.
December 28, 2009 at 11:40 am
>But it would be enormously helpful if local authorities, the police and other public bodies would insist that all their employees did some training in order to become religiously literate.
I’m not happy with the term “religiously literate”, since it is surely a matter of opinion? For some it would mean simply understanding accepting that it is all bunk.
I think that the likes of the Met are confused between “sameness” (everybody is treated identically, levelling down) and “diversity” (people are allowed to be different but treated equally).
I’d say that the biggest problem we have is a culture in public services which thinks that sameness is the only way of implementing diversity.
December 28, 2009 at 4:38 pm
It all makes me wonder what it is that the secularists are scared of. The go to enormous and stupid lengths to suppress or attack Christianity. Guys, if it is not true why are you so worried about it and why spend so much energy attacking a myth?
Maybe the reality is that Christianity has got them rattled. Whatever they do, it continues and draws support. However they try to marginalise us we seem to bounce back. We need to continue to resist their attempts to eliminate us, but lets not get into their mode of thought. Our task is to speak out logically and rationally about how our faith informs and builds society and how enlightenment science is not the entire way of defining the world.
December 28, 2009 at 5:28 pm
David,
It all makes me wonder what it is that the secularists are scared of.
I was never a secularist as such, but when I was actively avoiding Christianity and pursuing other faiths I found it very difficult and tiresome to deal with continual attempts by well-meaning Christians to convert or “save” me through argument or admonisment, and I did come to associate other symbols of Christianity with those attempts.
December 28, 2009 at 5:37 pm
Tom,
So when the left take up semi-Christian rhetoric (as Obama did last year), it’s never about marriage, family, sexual morality or abortion (these are no go areas for the left, who brokered in the social revolution in these areas) but usually about redistribution of wealth and a postmodern preoccupation with ‘compensation’ for past ‘injustice’ to ethnic minorities/women/gays etc.
I think it’s pretty hard to tackle marriage, “family” (what do you mean here?), sexual morality or abortion definitively from within any faith. Ethical issues are complicated whether informed by faith or not.
Personally I look at things like abortion and the high divorce rate more as symptoms of the problems we face in society than as causes of them, though it is of course difficult to draw strict lines between cause and effect in cyclical, systemic situations.
As far as compensation goes, I’ve lived a pretty charmed life by most standards, and yet no amount of compensation would undo the hurts and injustices I have suffered. But where I have been at a disadvantage I have sometimes been able to get help (officially or through social networks etc) and other times not. I am very, very grateful for the help I have had and would not propose to deny it to others in similarly unfair situations. Life may not be fair, but the responsibility for making it fairer lies with those who have the power to do so.
December 28, 2009 at 7:52 pm
Thanks Song, that helps me understand a little more and I must say that whilst I hope I have never done this I have seen it at work amongst colleagues and I have cringed.
That says that we have some ground to make up in re-establishing our credibility before we will be understood. I wonder how we can best go about that?
December 28, 2009 at 9:39 pm
Song comments: ‘I think it’s pretty hard to tackle marriage, “family” (what do you mean here?), sexual morality or abortion definitively from within any faith. Ethical issues are complicated whether informed by faith or not.’
Laws, taxation rules etc can encourage – or discourage marriage. “family” means married parents bringing up children; the state can support – or undermine this divine institution. ‘abortion’: legally sanctioned killing of unborn children. You don’t think the state can influence here? Why do they think they can influence smoking, drug taking, use of contraceptives, racial attitudes etc?
The Left has helped to undermine marriage in the west, at the same time extending power over children – the main victims of marital failure (or non-existence).
December 28, 2009 at 10:15 pm
That says that we have some ground to make up in re-establishing our credibility before we will be understood.
I think so.
I wonder how we can best go about that?
I can only speak of my own experience… in my case, what made the difference was individuals who, instead of asking how they could change me, asked how they could help me, and then proceeded to do what they could, without a thought for what I might believe or any expectation that my beliefs might change.
I’ve said something similar in comments here before but can’t find it now… but it was unconditional love which brought so much light to my life and made me want to find out what made these people shine so brightly, to learn how they had had the vision and strength to help when others had simply walked away, to try and understand their faith even though I’d tried and tried and tried and failed before.
If I were to extrapolate from my own experiences, I’d say if people within the church wish to be understood, if people within any church wish to have some credibility in the wider, secular world, the thing to do is to try and help people rather than to scold or chide them.
I suspect it’s easier to do on an interpersonal or grassroots level than on the level of press releases or diversity training or journalism, but those things are ever with us. How do we proclaim God’s love for the world in an environment that doesn’t even concede the possible existence of God? Not by arguing about whether God exists, but by speaking and acting as if all humans are created in God’s image.
I wish I had a more specific answer than that but it’s all so context-sensitive that I don’t know where to start, most of the time.
December 29, 2009 at 7:29 am
Tom,
Laws, taxation rules etc can encourage – or discourage marriage.
Indeed they can and do encourage marriage. But they do not tackle it definitively, which I contend remains difficult from within or without a faith-based perspective.
“family” means married parents bringing up children;
That seems to me an incredibly narrow definition, even in traditional terms. What of aunts, uncles, siblings, cousins? What of widows who raise children with help from friends? What of caring for elderly parents and grandparents when they become old an infirm? What of godparents stepping in when a child’s father or mother is serving in Afghanistan? Aren’t these, also, “family”?
‘abortion’: legally sanctioned killing of unborn children.
I would argue that abortion is abortion whether it is legal or not. I don’t think you can prevent it entirely by outlawing it. Again, while I think legislation has influence, I don’t think it’s possible to tackle these issues definitively through legislation and I don’t think it’s easy to tackle them definitively from any one standpoint.
The Left has helped to undermine marriage in the west, at the same time extending power over children – the main victims of marital failure (or non-existence).
Perhaps. But not all failed marriages end in divorce, and children also suffer in the cases of abusive relationships which people stay in because they are afraid to get a divorce. I have direct personal experience of this, unfortunately. If I ever have children of my own I hope I do not sacrifice their safety and well-being for some lofty ideal of marriage or because I’m afraid of not having the support to raise them on my own. This happens regularly even in these oh-so-permissive times.
I don’t think you can “fix” marriage unless you can “fix” domestic violence… and that isn’t going to go away just because it’s illegal.
I don’t think it’s the government’s responsibility to legislate according to the cultural preferences of one faith. I think it’s the government’s responsibility to legislate such that there is greatest benefit to those who need it most. I don’t think for a moment that those decisions are easy. But if I want society to look different than it does at the moment (and I think we can agree that there are major problems) I see it as my responsibility to contribute to changes, not in sweeping legislation but in the small practical means available to me. That means helping out the single mother struggling along with four children whether I’m related to her (or them!) or not. It means spending an afternoon and evening with a friend who is suicidal and helping her get the medical care she needs regardless of whether I might approve of her lifestyle choices (and I’m pretty liberal, so I am referring to lifestyle choices here, not sexuality). It means finding ways to encourage and support my students, to build up and strengthen those communities I am part of, to foster new connections. It means trying to see in each and every person the image of God, whether they are rich or poor, smart or stupid, “well-bred” or common. It means trying to treat every person I meet as a beloved child of God, trusting that they are trying to do the best they can with the information and resources that they have. Being very much a fallible human, I fail at this in a thousand ways every day, of course, but I don’t currently have another coherent response to the compassion and kindness I have been shown.
I still don’t think you can legislate unconditional love, and I don’t see what else will work.
December 29, 2009 at 9:29 am
It’s really frustrating – and I’m in full agreement. We have a holiday because of CHRISTMAS – and many celebrate whether they believe or not, but not one whom I have spoken has been at all offended by a wishing of Happy Christmas – even if they are of other faiths, or without faith. My Seikh neighbours have Christmas drinks, send Christmas Cards (not ones with ‘seasons greatings’ written in, but ‘Happy Christmas’). So we continue this rediculous and petty wish to attempt not to offend anyone at all in society with taking out religion, gender etc etc. And along with it goes any sort of identity.
I make no apology in wishing everyone I have contact with a ‘Happy Christmas’.
December 29, 2009 at 10:24 am
Just to add fuel to your (low?)view of liturgical pedants.. liturgists would also point out that the Christmas/Epiphany season is 40 days long and ends on 2 February providing that nice symmetry with Lent! (And it began with the First Evensong of Christmas). Go to the Bishops House here and the Christmas decorations don’t come down until 2Feb! Hope you are enjoying your sabbatical – I do enjoy you blog.
December 29, 2009 at 5:33 pm
Thanks Mark B…I was going to make the same point myself, though sadly attempts to extend the post Christmas break for the full 40 days seem doomed to failure!
December 29, 2009 at 5:38 pm
Mark (and Kathryn), my view of liturgists is not low! Even where pedants are concerned. You are quite right, but my decorations are beginning to fall down already…
December 30, 2009 at 3:13 pm
As a Jew I would welcome the move to reschedule Chanucah to avoid suggestions that it is a ” Jewish Christmas”and offence to both Christians and Jews. I think a little give and take makes for better community relations don’t you? Rosh Hashanna (the Jewish New Year) was set in Sept/October to allow us to enjoy both. However if anyone is offended by this I promise not to enjoy myself at one of them. Or either.
December 30, 2009 at 4:00 pm
I find it interesting when a comment on a particular piece of secular foolishness can be opened up into a much wider discussion such as this.
There are two tracks here that I would address:
Abortion – is the legalised murder of infants!! Of course, abortion existed before it was legalised, in secrecy, in often dirty conditions, by unqualified intermediaries which caused much harm to those involved, both physically and mentally.
To prevent this harm, we allowed abortion to be legal and accepted as a form of contraception or convenience or individual lifestyle choice, thereby losing the ethical role it might have had if limited to, in cases of dire emergency, rape etc.
————————
Marriage is the religious, legal and community recognition of the status and partnership of two equal loving individuals to live together and to procreate (RC Position).
Living In Sin is the same loving partnership of two equals not recognised by religion, or legally, but is the norm nowadays in the community.
Civil Partnerships – is the legal recognition of two equals, living together in a loving relationship not recognised by religion, but accepted by the community, but, condemned by many.
Single Parents is a description of an individual living alone and loving, supporting and bringing up children. Whether, separated, divorced or never married, this status is generally looked down on by society.
Where is the Christian Ethical argument when we idealise Marriage as the status we all should aspire to, but where the cultural reality is that marriage is now a minority aspiration and we as Christians can discriminate in so many ways against those in partnerships other than marriage.
God loves us all – whatever our status and accepts us how we are! Only when Christians can bring them selves to totally accept all as part of God’s creation will it be able to move forward.
We should be seeking to be lovingly inclusive, to allow people the freedom to come to know and love Jesus Christ as our saviour while accepting that their different perspectives will colour our view of and to accept each other as bretheren members of human race, created by God, to know him, love him and to worship and serve him in this life in the next.
January 2, 2010 at 4:19 pm
The worst Christmas card I got this year was ‘winter wishes’ it was sent from Dartford and not Saudi Arabia, who it seems have banned Christmas to be replaced with the ‘festival of winter’ complete with Christmas – sorry – Winter Festival trees.
Yes, it is repugnant to have Christmas deleted on the grounds of offending the non believer. How can you offend someone who does not share a belief by wishing them a Happy something? Can good wishes be bad in any circumstance?
The BBC has got to new lows this year too. It started all broadcasts about Christmas with ‘As Christians believe’. This in itself is a little silly, since even if you do not believe there is very strong historical evidence of the life of Jesus.
You don’t find BBC news saying ‘As some scientists believe’ before talking in depth about the ‘big bang’.
Christmas should be a season of hope, not that you would think that from listening or reading the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Christmas sermon! Nick, please have a word.
January 3, 2010 at 11:24 pm
Nick, you are of course right to point out the crassness of the word change in this advert rendering the original pun pointless. However have you considered why the police find it necessary to do this in the first place? Over the past 15 years the police have been vilified in the press for their institutional racism more than any other organisation and every action they take continues to be examined for ‘proof’ that nothing has changed in order to fuel more media copy. That is not to say that change was not (and still is) required as it is in many organisations – I hope that senior reps of the C of E don’t see themselves as paragons of virtue in this respect! You quibble over the BTP spokesperson not knowing the difference between a faith and a denomination and whilst your observation may be correct what does it say to that person that their incorrect use of language has seen them ridiculed for their ignorance by a Bishop who,after all, happens to be comfortably debating his own specialist subject? As for your statement that “it would be enormously helpful if local authorities, the police and other public bodies would insist that all their employees did some training in order to become religiously literate” – do you really think that the police don’t already offer such training, where have you been for the past decade? The point isn’t whether police officers receive such training but rather that the drive in the UK to embrace diversity, eradicate racism etc is increasingly leading to bland mono-culturalism rather than an ability to celebrate the individuals that we all are. The police are out there to catch criminals, it is for the church and its leaders to ensure that the truth and relevance of Christianity continues to reach people’s lives.
January 4, 2010 at 11:41 am
David, I have considered why the police might have done this – and I think it was unnecessary and based on a false fear. This is nothing to do with race, but with misguided religious/cultural assumptions.
I also think that my comments about misunderstanding of the difference between ‘faith’ and ‘denomination’ are not ‘ridicule’ – and should not be read as such. This is a serious matter and not just a semantic game. It is vital that public bodies should (a) understand the people they are there to serve and (b) communicate effectively in language that is intelligible as well as appropriate.
I fully support the police at every level. Here in Croydon I think they are superb. I also think they are asked to do the impossible with ever shrinking resources and that the public expectation of greater service for fewer taxes is simply absurd. But those realities don’t take away the ‘own goals’ of the poster under question.
You are, of course, right about the C of E not shouting from some ivory tower of purity. The Diocese of Southwark followed the Lawrence Inquiry with its own internal inquiry into institutional racism and some of what emerged wasn’t good. Like the police, we made a lot of changes in order to address the problems, but (a) more remains to be done and (b) it is hard for some people to allow any institution – whatever it does – to move on from its earlier indictments. Every institution has to watch its progress and recognise its mistakes, but good stuff should also be celebrated. That, I think, particularly applies to the police.
January 4, 2010 at 11:23 pm
Nick, I agree that this drive towards bland, culturally / religiously ‘neutral’ language as a mark of respect for diversity is based on a false fear (I have never come across a member of another faith who objects to Christmas) but it is (sadly)symptomatic of a current feature of British society. You may have ascertained from my entry that I am a police officer and in my Borough (Lewisham) I have recently commenced a ‘Faith Forum’ to which a broad spectrum of local faith leaders are invited and I encourage all the attendees to share with us their observations of policing in Lewisham and how we can adapt our service to meet their needs and concerns. Thanks for this blog, personally I find the issues you raise relevant and pertinent and your observations always give me food for thought. Enjoy Berlin! David.
January 5, 2010 at 2:26 am
Just to put the record straight, the Eastern Churches don’t celebrate Christmas at Epiphany, we celebrate Epiphany at Christmas. That is, we commemorate the wise men on Christmas day. Tomorrow (Western Epiphany) we will be celebrating Theophany, the baptism of Christ.
Oh, and the police, do they announce their presence for the summer holidays as well?
January 6, 2010 at 8:30 pm
David, thanks for responding. We should have a conversation some time about policing in the current climate. It is great that you have established the Faith Forum. Have you ever spoken to my guy in Croydon? If not, give me a call when I am back in mid-February and I’ll make the connection.
January 15, 2010 at 10:21 pm
Bishop Nick,
Well done for commenting on this issue. Quite simply,it seems wrong for such a poster,( or any kind of public communication), to avoid any direct reference to any part of our commonly accepted culture. I hate Bullfighting, but I would not expect to viist Spain and NOT see any posters extolling such activity. Also, Christmas is Christmas, Diwali is Diwali and Ramadan is Ramadan,to all who have differing cultures and beliefs.To each his/her own. I think your blog is very interesting,and is exactly what a caring bishop should do . Keep up the good work !