Sacrifice to Santa

Every year it happens; some poor guy (or girl) tells children the truth that ‘There ain’t no Santa Claus’; and the sky falls on him/her.  A few years ago it was a primary school supply teacher who it seems unfortunately misjudged whether her class were already old enough to know the truth.  She got suspended and special lessons on ‘the meaning of Christmas’ were arranged to put things right by, well, ensuring that the children’s belief in Santa was restored.

This year it’s a priest.  Talking to children he both told them Father Christmas doesn’t exist and also told them the original legend of St Nicholas (‘Santa Claus’), a 4th Century Turkish bishop known for a probably true act of generosity and also for a few less likely miracles, one of which involves some slightly gory details.  Children were reduced to tears, claimed the front page headline press story about this ‘Grinch’.

Now it may well be that the priest misjudged whether the children were quite ready for the gorier bits of the St Nick legend; but given what can be seen on children’s TV currently, I’m a bit dubious on that.  It’s also getting harder and harder in these days of political correctness and such to judge that kind of issue clearly anyway….

But basically, presumably the crying was mainly over the denial of Santa.  And I think it’s time to reconsider this whole business.

First, the modern ‘Father Christmas’ not only doesn’t really exist, even as a myth he’s a surprisingly modern addition to our Christmas; famous Christmas enthusiast Charles Dickens doesn’t seem to have known of him.

St Nicholas did exist; but apart from the hijacking of his name in its Germanic form of ‘Santa Claus’, he really has nothing to do with the modern essentially pagan fat red-cloaked demigod who lives at the North Pole with an elvish toy factory.  St Nicholas was celebrated in Europe by a festival of giving on his proper ‘saint’s day’ of December 6th, a festival which perhaps surprisingly survived even among Protestants after the Reformation.  I’m not clear how he became entangled with Christmas, the earliest example I personally know of is the appallingly sentimental American poem “’Twas the Night Before Christmas….”  I think I could go along with the continuation of a proper St Nicholas festival, on the proper date, which was really about giving to the needy rather than the modern consumerism; but that’s not going to happen now, is it?

Take away the St Nick connection (which is effectively abandoned in the modern Santa myth), and the modern Father Christmas has no real connection to the Christian Christmas celebration, or to Christianity at all.  Indeed, Father Christmas has become an alternative to the Christian Christmas story, and an untrue alternative at that.  And if you look around the shops as Christmas approaches you won’t these days see much of the Nativity, of Jesus and his family, the stable and stuff.  OK, stars and angels seem to have survived from the traditional story, but otherwise it’s all Santa and ‘his’ presents, reindeer, elves, snow, robins, Dickensian scenes assorted, Christmas trees, baubles and other jazzy decorations, cards mostly not showing anything Christian….

So why do Christians put up with this?  Why do we, the followers of the Way, the TRUTH and the Life, go along with the – let’s be blunt about it – LIE?  Why does a priest who tells the truth about Santa get reprimanded by panicky superiors?  Why do church members ‘do Santa’ and tell the Santa lie to their children??  What can be wrong in telling children the truth that they get presents from family and friends who love them, and through normal channels, not via the North Pole?

And what about the media who make such a fuss about the truth-teller?  Be honest, if a priest were to tell children a deliberate lie about anything else, the media would be demanding instant unfrocking; but when it’s Santa, it’s the other way round – join in with the lie or we crucify you!  Santa has become the only religion in Britain which is allowed to persecute unbelievers – and that despite the fact that none of the adult persecutors actually believe in Santa themselves!  But why should Christians be pressurised to tell lies – the media and the politically-correct brigade would be up in arms at attempts to make people of other faiths go along with lies related to their faith, or let their festivals be subjected to similarly blasphemous exploitation?  (‘Blasphemous’?  I invite you to consider some of the words of ‘Santa Claus is coming to town…!)

I don’t like making children cry either; but in this case, who really produces the tears – the person who finally tells the truth, or the people who have told such an elaborate and deliberate lie in the first place?  And while I’m in favour of religious toleration, the Father Christmas myth and the modern ‘Christmas’ that goes with him is no genuine religion – rather it is a commercialised parasite on Christianity, and surely we are well entitled to disclaim it and make clear that it’s no real part of the authentic Christmas, the Christmas which is about the incarnation of the Son of God.  I think it is some indication of the bias and unfairness of the ‘political correctness’ brigade that while they’re so keen to supposedly protect those of other faiths from Christianity, they won’t protect Christianity from this parasite.

We Christians often make a token fuss about the commercialisation of Christmas; but I believe that if we really want to make an impact on that commercialisation, we need to be clear to the world out there that ‘Father Christmas’ is nothing to do with our celebrations, and that  CHRISTIANS DON’T BELIEVE IN HIM!!  It’s not just the commercialisation, it’s also the ‘simple truth’ aspect – we compromise Christian truthfulness when we go along with such nonsense.  Having said that, it does look as if the attempt to have a secular Christmas is flagging a bit; indeed the vehemence with which people are attacked for telling the truth about Santa suggests a degree of desperation….


Prince Charles and the Islamic Threat

I picked up a newspaper item about Prince Charles being very concerned at deteriorating Christian/Muslim relations, persecution of Christians in Muslim countries, and so on, particularly that Christianity is now threatened with extinction in the Middle East where it originated.  He was complaining that problems were being deliberately exacerbated by people with an interest in conflict.  He seemed totally oblivious that he – or at least, his family’s relationship to England’s established church – is a major part of the problem

The Prince seemed to hold the view that there’s a ‘nice’ form of Islam which doesn’t do wars and persecutions.  Indeed there is – sort of.  The problem is that any Muslim who goes back to the fundamentals and the origin of the religion will find that during Muhammad’s lifetime he was leading armies himself, ordering followers to conduct military raids, having people put to death, establishing Islam in Mecca by force (as in, a massive battle was only avoided by the Meccans’ surrender), and clearly setting up Islam as an ‘established’ state religion with a clear intent to become the global religion by conquest if necessary.  There are traces of an early period when Muhammad seems to have thought he might spread Islam purely peaceably, but this didn’t last long, though it does leave anomalies like that text often quoted about ‘let there be no compulsion in religion’.  A ‘nice’ war-and-persecution-free Islam is not the authentic original, and Muslims wanting to be authentic will reject that ‘nice’ version.  There isn’t going to be an easy answer to that one….

Having said that, Muslims are supposed to be tolerant of Christians, Jews, and other monotheistic ‘peoples of a/the book’ – though in an Islamic state, that toleration is by Western standards quite severe discrimination.  However, that tolerance understandably does not extend to when those others are actually at war with Islam.

The other part of the problem is that Muslims perceive Christianity as the same kind of religion as Islam; that is, a religion which aims to be established in the state and is willing to extend and defend itself by war, and which in Christian states persecutes dissenters.  And of course by the time of Muhammad that was indeed the case, with the Roman Empire’s ‘Catholic’ church which eventually split into western ‘Roman Catholic’ and ‘Eastern Orthodox’, while later an alliance of the churches fought the Crusades which are still ingrained in Muslim memory.  And, which is where Prince Charles comes in, there are still various churches to this day which are either fully ‘established’ as state churches or in various ways privileged in western states, and which still teach the ideal of a ‘Christian state’ even if perhaps a bit tenuous and nominal.  [The churches concerned include Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran in various states, and again in various states Presbyterian/Reformed churches.  Many nominally independent churches may nevertheless teach that the state should be broadly Christian and should give Christianity in general a privileged position.  The USA has a strange position of emphatically not having a single favoured church but nevertheless being assumed to be ‘Christian’ by most of its citizens, a perception which as a result is shared by most Muslims.]

With that perception of Christianity it has been all too easy for Muslims to interpret recent western intervention in the east as a renewal of the Crusades, a Christian war against Islam itself.  Even for Muslims who live here in the UK, such is their own faith’s doctrine of ‘taw’hid’ (I think I got that right) or ‘oneness’ that they have serious difficulty with the concept of ‘separation of state and church’ and can’t understand that Britain isn’t that much of a Christian country any more.  The West more or less got way with ‘Gulf War I’, the liberation of Kuwait, because we went in at the invitation of Arab states and stopped when we had achieved what they wanted, rather than carrying on to do further things that we might have wished.  Even so, the mere presence of troops of infidels in holy Saudi Arabia was apparently a major factor for bin Laden, leading to the rise of Al Qaida and it’s targeting of the west.

Afghanistan again we might have got away with had we limited our aims to an attempt to destroy Al Qaida and catch or kill Osama bin Laden, and had we withdrawn when it was clear that Osama wasn’t there anymore.  Other Arab states would probably have accepted such limited aims.  By carrying on and trying to impose western ideas in a country not really ready for them, we have looked more and more like Crusaders against Islam itself, and we have paid the price. 

‘Gulf War II’ against Iraq was a bad idea not least because Saddam was not in league with bin Laden but a different and almost opposed faction in Islam,  and many Muslims considered him a marginal Muslim who only ‘played the Muslim card’ to get support as his gambles got him into trouble.  Again, our continued occupation and attempts to ‘democratise’ Iraq in western style have been provocative to many Muslims.

The perception of the West as ‘Christian’ has made these wars intractable for our soldiers – indeed in realistic terms unwinnable, though we may be near to a withdrawal leaving a messy situation with lots of unresolved issues – and it’s also been a major reason for the persecution of native Christians in the Middle East that worries the Prince.  Why so?  Simply because they are seen as ‘allies’ of the ‘Christian Crusading armies’ of the US and UK and other western states that have become involved.  And how will we convince Muslims that this isn’t true when our state has an established Christian Church, the Church of England, whose supreme earthly governor is our monarch, head of state and ultimate commander of those ‘Christian Crusading armies’?  She is also, of course, Prince Charles’ mother, and when he inherits the monarchy he will also inherit her role in the Church…!

The tragedy and irony of the situation is that Christianity was never meant to be the same kind of state religion as Islam, entangled with earthly governments, but something rather different.  There’s even a reasonably plausible argument that had Muhammad been faced with the original form of Christianity rather than the Roman Imperial version, Islam might never have developed, or could have been significantly different.  The bad example of the Imperial church in Muhammad’s time, and the later wars with ‘Christendom’, both Islamic conquests and the western ‘Crusades’ and other wars, have left a terrible legacy, and it is past time to sort this out.  If Charles really wants to help persecuted Christians, the most useful thing he could do would be to disclaim the established Church of England, and play what limited role he can as a constitutional monarch to free Christianity from the state in the UK so it can be the faith it was designed to be, and set Islam a very different example of how God’s people should live in the world.

In the same week as Charles’ comments, the Sunday Telegraph carried a headline “Labour; We must now ‘do God’”, and two related internal articles in which Labour MP Douglas Alexander said we must do more to ‘address the threat to Christians abroad’, and challenges the way ‘political correctness’ has made politicians unwilling to speak out to defend Christianity.  An editorial piece said much the same.  I was actually quite happy about this – I’d feared on seeing the headline that Labour might be about to reassert the notion of England as a ‘Christian country’, which wouldn’t have been helpful.  Nevertheless Mr Alexander, like the Prince, seemed oblivious to his own part in the problem as a member of the Church of Scotland.  The Church of Scotland is not formally established in quite the same sense as the Anglicans in England, but it is nevertheless formally the national church of Scotland, and the church in which the royals worship when they are in Scotland, and so is part of the same ‘Christian state’ issue which leads Muslims to see Christians as a proper target for persecution.  Again, if Mr Alexander wants to help the foreign Christians, he needs to start by changing the status of his own church in the UK.

And again, just before Christmas the Daily Telegraph carried another front page story about the former Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey, concerned that Christians here in the UK are cowed and fearful of talking about their faith.  Again, he doesn’t seem to see that the onslaught of political correctness here is a backlash against the former improper dominance of Christianity in the UK, particularly in the ‘established’ status of his own church.   While a few have responded by trying to reassert that old dominance and insist on the UK being a ‘Christian country’, many more can see that that isn’t possible or proper; but unfortunately haven’t yet been able to formulate or work out a better idea about their status in the UK.  Consequently they are diffident and don’t have a sound confident biblical response to the PC brigade, and therefore have difficulty in speaking out.  Again the Archbishop needs to realise that he and his church are part of the problem and must change. 

A final thought – if I were to go by those I talk to or meet in internet forums, and most of the others I hear about elsewhere, the Church of England doesn’t have any members who really believe in the establishment, and the only reason they don’t do anything about it is because they don’t believe it matters any more.  Mostly they are comfortable where they are and haven’t realised their establishment is taken more seriously by extremist Muslims, and indeed in this country by extremist ‘Loyalists’ and ‘Unionists’ in Ulster for whom the Protestant establishment is what they are loyal to and want to be united with.  I’m working on a separate blog about this phenomenon, but it’s a bit worrying that a major factor in Christians abroad being persecuted is an establishment here that its own members don’t take seriously.

PS – since writing the above, Christmas saw both the current Archbishop of Canterbury and a leading Roman Catholic also speaking out about the persecution of Christians.  About the Archbishop, see above; for the Roman Catholic, I’m not sure that Muslims will be very convinced by a representative of the Church which basically ran the original Crusades now complaining that Christians are being persecuted by Muslims.  Hmmm!!