Tis the season...for what?

Sitting on one's bed munching on a mince pie and sipping a glass of some sort of sparkling berry juice type thing from Aldi (tis lovely actually), whilst staring down the dog and telling him there's no way in hell he's getting some of aforementioned pie, all to the tune of one of the best versions of one's favourite Christmas carol : recipe for bliss, don't you think? I have had a marvellous Christmas, I am happy to say. All out war with my brother was successfully avoided, and we made it to his mother-in-law's for dinner with minimum disaster ensuing. The dinner was sublime, the desserts were even more so, and Santa was very generous to all the good boys and girls, both young and old. The only thing to go wrong was that everyone managed to forget to buy Christmas crackers. I think this is my first Christmas in living memory without them. It's...bizarre!

I love Christmas, I have to admit. However, anyone that knows me is sure to dread this time of year with me, as it invariably leads to several grumpy outbursts on the topic. Words like "commercialisation" and "ruined" tend to come up a lot. Yes folks, I am one of those people who goes around grumbling about the true meaning of Christmas being lost in this modern world. I also have the gall to suggest that the main point, the most important thing, about Christmas is the birth of Jesus Christ. (Christ-mas? Geddit? Clever eh?) I had the interesting experience this year of being accused not once but twice of "indoctrinating" my six year old nephew by telling him that the birth of Jesus was the most important thing about Christmas. The first was by a good friend taking the piss, and wasn't serious. But the second guy was. He is what I would affectionately dub an Atheist Fundamentalist. He seemed quite annoyed at my suggestion to an "impressionable child" that Jesus ranked slightly ahead of Santa on the Christmas Top Ten. I didn't say Santa wasn't an extremely important individual. He's like the Vice President of Christmas Inc, and Jesus is the CEO. I mentioned this once to the child. His reluctant attendance at Mass was his (not overly religious, I might add) mother's doing, not his apparently over zealous aunt. Now does that count as indoctrination? Perhaps the chap should get the benefit of the doubt for not actually knowing me that well, being more of a friend-of-a-friend. I politely pointed out that seeing as Jesus is as much of a fairy-tale as Santa in his eyes, where's the harm?

Anyone who does know me on a slightly personal level would know that I am far from the indoctrinating type. I would make a positively useless fundamentalist, to be frank. I follow the line of a good priest friend and spiritual mentor of mine that Christianity is something you're attracted to, not persuaded by. I have no interest whatsoever to converting my numerous atheistic and agnostic friends to Christianity. I'm sure in the eyes of fundamentalists and some conservatives this makes me a horrendously uncaring individual, and only serves to prove my own degeneracy and lack of true faith. I'm not saying spreading the good news is a bad thing. Chasing people down the road and battering them over the head with it isn't right though. I have no problem bearing witness to the faith. I have no shame admitting I believe in God and that I love Him. I love talking at length about faith and spiritual matters. I just know how to respect when others don't. Unfortunately this leads to me being accused of being too sympathetic to non-believers and people of other faiths, which compromises my commitment to the faith. Which is odd, because several others accuse me of pandering too much to conservative elements in Christianity, even though I say I don't agree with their positions. I guess that leaves me somewhere in the middle-of-the-road then?

What others see as pandering I see as respect and objectivity. As I've tirelessly argued, this does not amount to acquiescence or lack of conviction. The whole Christmas thing is an example of this. I am unwavering in my conviction that the Nativity is the central theme and most important aspect of Christmas. I baulk at this PC American "Happy Holidays" rubbish. I'm sorry, Christmas is a Christian holiday (queue smart arse pointing out it was originally pagan. Well pagans are free to celebrate the original if they want!). And the Nativity is an irrevoccable part of it. I am all for respecting other faiths and traditions, but I'm not going to water down my own religious festivals. And I am interested to know how many Jews or Muslims or whoever are actually that horrendously offended by the sight of a Christmas tree and a few decorations in public, anyway? Our neighbour is an Iraqi Muslim and I didn't see him keeling over in disgust at the sight of my sis in law's lights outside. He wished me a happy Christmas this morning, just like I wished him Eid Mubarak a few months ago. Fair enough, if someone's not Christian then maybe refrain from wishing them a Merry Christmas, but if you slip up I'm sure it won't cause mortal offence.

I am thankfully less self-righteous than I used to be though. There was a time when I quite annoyed at non-religious people celebrating Christmas. I saw this as a disgraceful, hypocritical, and just plain wrong. I (wrongly) assumed that these people were all just interested in the consumerist element of Christmas if they weren't religious. (Hey what can I say, I was a teenager suffering a spiritual crisis and exposed to a lot of American televangelism.) This view was challenged by a good friend a few years ago, who got quite angry at me for saying people who didn't believe in God shouldn't celebrate Christmas. I think he calls himself an atheist these days, but anyway, he isn't a religious person. His mother is and I think they do the Mass thing at Christmas, but let's say they don't, and take it from his perspective. He is rather fond of Christmas, and he explained to me why. He told me of how much it meant to him to spend time with his family at Christmas. They have lots of "silly" little traditions, including an adorable one involving their dad reading "The Night Before Christmas" to them on the upstairs landing, despite them being bone fide adults now. I grabbed him on gchat for a soundbite update for 2009 just now:

"it's a chance to catch up with the family. Something that I've only realised the true importance of since escaping to college. It gives you the chance to spend a week or two of just hanging out with the people who mean most to you. And then there are presents. The presents help you block out the not so pleasant family moments."

So after that my self-righteous attitude to Christmas and those who celebrate it were suitably humbled. In fact most of my righteous indignation these days is directed towards fellow Christians rather than the unbelieving. I have since acquired more heathen friends, and have observed more deeply family-centred thought around Christmas celebrations. And I have no objection whatsoever to these people celebrating Christmas anymore. They may not give the Nativity the central importance it deserves, but they celebrate the second most important part of Christmas: love and family. Christmas is a time for family and friends to gather together and celebrate. Quite a few Christians I know fail on that one, no matter how long they spend in Church on the day.

So I guess my main gripe with modern Christmas is correctly identified as the rampant commercialism rather than the spiritual orientation of those who chose to celebrate it. Like I said earlier, I love Christmas, but I love it from about December 20th onwards. I do not love being bombarded by Christmas in the shopping centres from about five minutes after the Hallowe'en decorations are back in the box. I do not like being run over by some poor stressed out mother with a crazed look in her eyes trying to run around the shops trying to find the latest ridiculously overpriced toy that Nickelodeon has brainwashed her child into wanting (seriously-there is a post in me somewhere on advertising on children's networks). Which she has probably left to the last minute to but because she only successfully managed to secure herself a massive debt to pay for now. It may sound employing hyperbole for effect, but believe me, I've known mothers who've had to get loans to keep up with the demands of Christmas expense these days. And they're not particularly materialistic people, they just want to give their children as good as everyone else. And much as people like me might "indoctrinate" the young ones, Santa still has massive sway with them. Not that I'm blaming the kids for one minute! Santa and presents are a hugely important part of Christmas. I'm blaming the media and "gimme gimme gimme" culture they live in. Christmas has become "what can I get" day. Children can be forgiven, but adults should know better. The amount of people I have heard bitching because they got presents they didn't like, or weren't good enough. This positively infuriates me. What happened to the thought counting? I know, you're probably scoffing at my naivety at this point. What can I say, I'm very traditional about some things at heart. We all know getting gifts for even those we know can be a horrendously difficult experience that would drag the most sturdy to drink. I nearly went bald from tearing my hair out over my brother, and I've known him the entire twenty four years on the planet. I'm not saying we all have to like all our gifts. I hold my hand up and say I have returned something in the past. However, I appreciated the fact I was given a gift in the first place. And I did not make it blatantly obvious to the person that I had no interest in the thing whatsoever. I'm sorry, but to display displeasure to someone with the gift they have just given you is plain rude.

You know what present I am most excited about this year? My friend sent his old 30gb ipod classic away to be repaired so he could give it to me. He's bought a new one and doesn't need it. I am like any six year old waiting for Santa, I can't wait! He said he felt bad giving me a second hand gift, as he's ok for money and could afford to buy me one, but I had expressed interest in buying it off him so would it be ok for him to give it as a gift, as he thought it's what I would like most. I am ecstatic! Not least because my current MP3 player is in such a state of wreckage that it's a wonder I haven't been electrocuted, even though it's battery operated. What most struck me is the fact he thought of me. I know people personally who would be horrifed; who would think he is a cheap so-and-so to give me his "cast offs". I think it's a wonderful idea, and have demanded he visit me tomorrow to give it to me. I'm not trying to make myself out to be some sort of saint. I've been disappointed with gifts (though not this year I must say!). But a gift is not an estimation of your worth to the person. No matter how well they know you, they might not be able to think of what you really, truly, would-sell-your-mother-for want. They were thinking of you all the while they were sweating blood to get it, doesn't that bloody matter?

I probably sound like some sort of pious twat of a grinch by now. Well, I'm not. I do love Christmas, secular warts and all. I just wish people would reorganise their priorities. Tis the season for what? For celebrating the birth of our Lord, first and foremost. Many won't agree with me on that, but just bear with me. It's not often I have an unshifting position on matters religious. Well actually I have many, but I just handle myself better than many Christians. Anyway, tis the season to celebrate the Nativity. And tis also the season for love, family and friends. Even if they drive you bonkers and you want to kill them, there is nothing more lovely than sitting across from your brother Christmas day trying to resist the urge to dump bread sauce over his head as he takes the piss out of you for going to Mass.

This last bit is for the fellow Christians, so the rest of you might want to skip along. ;) Speaking of Mass, it happens to be my favourite part of Christmas. Especially as the church where I live now has a proper (read: traditional) choir. My favourite carols are the aforementioned O Holy Night and Adeste Fideles. However, the one carol which I always fail to finish singing every year because I choke up is this. It was the first one I remember learning as a child, but also I think the second half of the second verse and the third just sum it all up really. A simple, childlike request, untainted by the politics of "grown-up" religion. Beautiful.

And on that note folks, I shall end the rather long sermon and leave you to enjoy the rest of Christmas, whatever your take on it.

PS: Excellent article from one of my favourite blogs here

The benefits of a-la-carte versus set menu...

See, I told you I'd be a useless blogger. It's been about...er, six weeks since my last one? Can I possibly have gone six weeks with having nothing to moan/rant/give an informed opinion on? Nah. Much more likely that I've been busy and completely forgot. Plus that makes me sound all mysterious and interesting, so we'll go with that.

So I met up with my good friend and chaplain at UCC today. Having spent a few moments groaning and facepalming over the recent events at Knock, we indulged in some riveting theological discussions of the Bible. Well I find them riveting anyway. I love a good theological discussion, me. I particularly like theological discussions with sane, rational fellow Christians like this chap. That's one of the few things in life that disheartens me really. The surprisingly low levels of sanity, rationality and plain common sense exhibited by some in modern Christianity (and other faiths, I'm sure. I can only speak for my own lot). I'm currently reading The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. I must admit I'm not too far into it, what with not being the best at time management and all that. I do find it a really good read. And I find myself agreeing with a lot of the points he makes. Don't get too excited now, all you atheists out there. You still can't claim me as your own. However Dawkins makes very valid points about the damage religion can do to society, which I agree with. I see religious fundamentalism as one of the greatest evils in the world. Where I would disagree is obviously a) the fact that there is no God and b) that the world would be better off without any religion or faith whatsoever.

Many modern atheists would argue that faith, science and reason are completely incompatible. I would disagree. I consider myself a (relatively) sane and sensible person. I have whopping great blonde moments at times, but I have a few brain cells huddling together up there somewhere. There is nothing in modern scientific teaching in areas such as evolution that I disagree with. Yet I am a card-carrying Christian, and not ashamed to say it. I believe in God, and that's it and all about it. I have no emperical or scientific way of proving His existance, so this will do absolutely nothing to persuade any atheists in the audience of either God's existance or my personal sanity. Furthermore, some tend to find it harder to understand how I can remain a believer when I outline my views. However, this isn't aimed at non-believers or agnostics, so you might want to look away now, maybe go get some tea. It's a plea to fellow Christians to stop for a few minutes and use the brains and common sense God gave them.

Yours truly over here tends to fall under the term "a-la-carte Catholic". I'm not sure what to make of this, as it is generally used as a derogatory term by conservatives. The very term implies picking and choosing what suits one's own personal tastes, right? Well, it's not that simple. I take it as sifting through the pile and picking out what makes the most sense, and, most importantly, is the most Christian. Here's the first major sticking point: Sola Scriptura: Yay or Nay? The answer is nay, folks. One thing I am keen to point out about the Roman Catholic Church (and Anglican Churches) is that they do not subscribe to this belief. The RCC fully accepts the scientific evolutionary explanation for creation. A literal interpretation of Genesis is, to quote my aforementioned priest friend, "completely ridiculous and flies in the face of all knowledge and reason". Apologies to any evangelical "Bible-believing" types out there, but that's the truth. "Blasphemy! How can you say this! The Bible is the infallible word of God!!" you screech, when the rage has subsided enough to allow for coherant speech. Er, is it? God wrote the Bible, did he? No, men wrote the Bible. The closest thing in the Bible which could claim to be directly dictated by God are the Ten Commandments, given to Moses on Mount Sinai. The rest are written by men, and God is generally not speaking to them at the time. The Bible can be called the inspired word of God, yes. It is not the infallible and inerrant word of God though, because God did not directly write, nor dictate and proofread it. Moreover, it has been translated and re-translated thousands of times, so even had He written it, it would not have come to us verbatum. Even Jesus Himself was quoting translation when He spoke of the Hebrew Scriptures, because His mother tongue was Aramaic. See where I'm going with this?

"How can you be a Christian if you admit the Bible isn't true?" Just because I don't believe in the literal reading of the Bible doesn't mean I don't believe the ethos of it. It doesn't mean I don't believe that Jesus was real. I most certainly do. Again however, Jesus did not write the Gospels. And they were not written while he was alive. Yes, Matthew and John were apostles, so they knew Him personally. Their Gospels were not written till at least 30 years later though. Luke and Mark were even later. Furthermore, they did not sit down to write verbatum, infallible gospels. They were writing a record of Jesus and His life and teachings to be used in the Christian communites of the time. They were also not the only ones writing about the subject. By the time of the Council of Nicea came around in 325AD, there were several types of Christianity floating around. The Council codified Christian orthodoxy to follow the "valid" teachings of Pauline Christianity, and compiled the Bible we know today, leaving many contempory Christian writings out. One could spend all day discussing/boring people to death with this, but my point is this: How can people today honestly claim that the Bible is the inerrant, infallible word of God when it has clearly been subject to revision, editing and compilation by man since its inception?

The Bible is a blurry mixture of literature, history and folktale motifs. "So, if you don't believe the Bible should be read literally, and you're not an atheist, then what's your answer, smart alec?" Like I said, the Bible is a piece of literature. Like one of my English lecturers never tires of telling us: Reading should be an active, not passive endeavour. He talks of unpacking texts. That is what we Christians have to do with the Good Book. Read it actively, searching in between the lines. Think and pray while you're doing it. What fundamentalists do is the merely read it and the regurgitate what it says, without thinking about what it actually says, what it means. This is not proper spirituality. This is not true, living faith. It's like a parrot. It certainly seems like it is speaking, but it isn't. It's imitating speech, but it cannot think of words of its own. Why did Jesus speak in parables if He didn't want us to think about His teaching, hmm?

The biggest mistake they make is that they get so caught up in dogma and doctrine, that they tend to leave out a small little aspect: that Jesus of Nazereth bloke. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but He's kind of important in the whole Christianity gig right? What's He got to say for Himself then? Was He was running around giving out and making big lists of rules and regulations? Er, no actually. He seemed to be a bit too preoccupied with hanging out with all those beggars and tax collectors. He sometimes had a few kind words for widows and lepers, too. This one time though, He got mightily hacked off and smashed up the temple. Now what on earth would drive Jesus meek and mild to lose His temper like that! It was those awful gays, wasn't it. Darn perverts! Funnily enough, no. It was pious, upstanding religious leaders being financially immoral and corrupt in the temple. Hmm...Now I wonder...

Apologies for the descent into such irreverant humour. My devout a-la-cartism also firmly believes in the Divine Sense Of Humour. My point is, so many Christians spend so much time condemning this person and that person for breaking the "rules", without seeming to have any idea of who Jesus was or what He was about. He wasn't about rules and dogma. (I know some smart alec will inevitably quote the passage about Him coming not to destroy the law but to fulfill here). He was about love, compassion, justice, tolerance. The tempatations in Luke 4: 1-13 are seen as temptations to power, prestige and popularity. These are the things which Jesus rejects. This is what He is not about. He then tells us in 4: 18-30 what He is about: He came to bring good news to the poor, release the captives, free the oppressed, etc. How many religious leaders or fundamentalists could claim to do these things? He was about the ordinary people, the sinners. And He treated them with compassion and understanding, rather than lambasting them for their failings. He saw the bigger picture, saw the grey shades of human experience rather than the nice and neat black/white or religious dogma. And he did not say a bloody word about sex. Cue smart alec evangelical type again: 'Mt 5:28, "But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart."' you declare smugly. Ok. In the literal sense, this means thinking about adultery is as bad as acting on it. Adultery is mentioned. Where does He mention the endless litany of other sexual sins you espouse? Using a small bit of brainpower to read between the lines, He tells us that our intentions are what matter, as well as our actions. When the Pharisees are criticising Him because the disciples are eating on the Sabbath when they should fast, He politely reminds them of the time David took the Priest's bread to feed his starving army. Ever wondered why Christians don't have dietary restrictions like other faiths? Because Jesus proceeded to tell these devout and pious men that it's not what enters a man's body that defiles him, but what comes out. In other words, it's what's in our hearts that matters. So the basic idea of Christianity is we are all human, we are all children of God, and we are all to love and treat each other well. Our attitude to our fellow man in our hearts is what matters, not what we eat, who we sleep with, what colour we are, or whatever other stupid reason we find for ostracising people. To all those who accuse me of being "a la carte", are you not doing the same in reverse when you ignore Jesus' teaching on compassion in favour of condemning everyone? Come here a sec, you seem to have a bit of a log in your eye there...

There endeth the lesson. Go in peace to get yourselves some coffee and curse my verbose rantings.