Over the past few years I have assigned a discussion project in my World Religions' Course at the University of Guelph which requires students to attend a place of worship. Preferably this should be an unfamiliar one, and they must report on the experience. I have always allowed 'attendance' at television or online services with the added proviso that they comment on the differences between online and physical attendance. Which, come to think of it, is ironic given that they are 'attending' an online class.
The comments to this comparison are various. Some appreciate being able, as one said, to sit in my pyjamas noisily eating my breakfast cereal 'at church', while others find the experience profoundly unsatisfying.
Why unsatisfying? Well, let me analyze that by noting the online services that students have generally enjoyed. These are the services which use multimedia effectively. They have interesting graphics (gifs I guess....), music that is of roughly the type they listen to as entertainment, lots of movement, lighting and so on - in other words, the techniques used are those used in music videos or concerts. The services most students did not like online, were simple camera views of old-style services - two dimensional, flat, boring. A few comment that the service might have been better had they attended in person.
So, multimedia yes - but not simply multimedia. I teach that multimedia began with George Whitefield in the First Great Awakening in the 1740s. He used what was then high tech - the newspaper to build excitement before he arrived in any town, then delivered a talk that pulled at the emotions and was light on doctrine. This is what successful online Christian services do. Plus ça change!
Sunday, July 26, 2015
Monday, June 15, 2015
Sycnretism Today
A Contemporary Example of Syncretism
This link may seem quite odd in a blog on religion, but bear with me. Louise Erdrich is an American writer - and quite successful at that art form. This link is to an interview and article on her in the American literary magazine The Paris Review. What caught my attention for this blog was the author's religious beliefs, mentioned in passing in this piece. She has a mix of European and Ojibwe (Ojibway in Canada, but both are pronounced the same way) heritage. In terms of religion she professes a mix of Catholic Christianity and traditional Ojibwe religion, a melding of beliefs that comes from her native American mother. Apparently she does not attend Mass ever - but keeps various holy objects such as crucifixes along with Ojibway 'medicine'.
This link may seem quite odd in a blog on religion, but bear with me. Louise Erdrich is an American writer - and quite successful at that art form. This link is to an interview and article on her in the American literary magazine The Paris Review. What caught my attention for this blog was the author's religious beliefs, mentioned in passing in this piece. She has a mix of European and Ojibwe (Ojibway in Canada, but both are pronounced the same way) heritage. In terms of religion she professes a mix of Catholic Christianity and traditional Ojibwe religion, a melding of beliefs that comes from her native American mother. Apparently she does not attend Mass ever - but keeps various holy objects such as crucifixes along with Ojibway 'medicine'.
Sunday, May 3, 2015
Intelligence
An atheist's definition of intelligence
This is a clip from a talk - well a sermon - by a fellow named Neil deGrasse Tyson. I had not heard of him before a friend sent this to me. He speaks well and is personable, but after a few days of ruminating on his talk I began to wonder at the foundation underlying the opinions expressed here. He uses percentages of highly educated people (those with graduate degrees is his definition here) who believe in a personal God. I note he does exclude, whether deliberately or not I don't know, those who have a more intellectual perception of the divine as an amorphous force rather than a personal God. In his schema, the higher up the IQ scale the well educated go, the less likely they are to believe in a personal God. Thus he presents statistics (with no indication of their source, though that may have appeared in a full version of his talk) that 40% of highly educated (again his definition) people do believe in a personal God, but among the most intelligent, this drops to 7%. His twist is, that he is surprised that the number of the most intelligent who do believe in a personal God is so high. He expected none or maybe some statistically insignificant percentage. Then he ruminates on the obverse of a coin I have often considered, that perhaps some people are wired in their brains to believe in a personal God and no amount of evidence can change that. My take has always been that atheists are persons who are missing some wiring connections in their physical brains that would have allowed them to believe in God.
Anyway, this long paragraph is really to set the context for something tangential to his argument, but which is nonetheless damaging to his rationale. His definitions of 'highly intelligent' and the most intelligent in society restricts this last, highest category to scientists. For some time now, I have been meditating on intelligence. I watched this video of an English psychiatrist who has written a book drawing on the newest research into the functions of the left and right brain hemispheres. Prior to this research the belief was that the right brain dominates artistic ability of all sorts: painting, poetry, writing, music and so on, while the left brain controls practical abilities such as science, auto mechanics, engineering, construction etc. The more nuanced view today, apparently, is that everybody uses their entire brain, but that the right side governs a contextual view of life, while the left brain directs focussed looks at life. This is similar to the old view as art of any type often, but not always, requires a sense of the overall context of the place of humanity in the world, while science, engineering, plumbing, auto mechanics all require that a person focus narrowly on a problem or enhancement within the whole in order to improve or repair. From this point, he notes that in the modern world, the activities and understandings governed by the left side of the brain are rewarded and therefore dominant in how we organize our lives today, our societies. He goes on to enter the world of social History and believes that this is a product of the industrial revolution, which required at its base, a division of life's activities into discrete categories that could be focussed on while ignoring to a large extent the whole. Thus for example, in my field, the history of religion, you study one religion and only secondarily look at its relations with other religions. Religious studies' textbooks are always presented with chapters devoted to singular religious faiths, and within those chapters, the religion presented is itself carved up into rituals, texts, social life and so on. It is exceedingly rare these days to find any sort of history text or scholarly monograph that attempts to put all this together in context - in any field of history. I have tried to overcome this approach in my own teaching, but I have no idea whether I have succeeded in this, or not.
This has resonated with me in terms of the atheist link above, where Mr. Tyson considers those individuals who are scientists to be the elite of the intelligentsia, and those who are most narrowly focussed to be the elite of the elite. His definition of intelligence rests on this narrow focus, this giving of overarching privilege to the left hemisphere of the brain. Here I am reminded of the comedy series 'The Big Bang Theory' which mocks this sort of intelligence. The genius is this show about experimental physicists is a character, Sheldon Cooper, who is barely functional in the world of human relationships as his entire intelligence revolves around his narrow field of study and anything outside that is secondary and external, and to him, risible.
Next I began considering the idea of EQ (Emotional Quotient or Emotional Intelligence) as opposed to IQ. Intelligence quotient tests were devised in the early 20th century and EQ or EI dates from the late 20th century. IQ tests purport to test intelligence and are also purported to be an indicator of future success in life. This all begs the questions, what is intelligence and what, indeed, is success. Is a great artist who dies in poverty a success or a failure? EI purports to measure the degree to which an individual relates to others. Both are based on the idea that you can measure human beings and both require socially embedded definitions of 'success' or 'failure', usually determined by 'how much money you make' or 'how famous you are' or 'what degree of power' you have. In other words both, although usually presented in opposition to one another, are based on the left brained view of life, and neither, though EI comes closer, look at context, or view life holistically.
All the forgoing has deep implications for the state of religiosity, and religious institutions today. Religion, any religion, consists firstly of a holistic view of existence. It doesn't matter if you are a Buddhist who rejects any idea of God or gods, or a devout Muslim or Christian, your essential worldview is holistic. It requires you to put all the pieces together, or rather it assumes that existence is integrated and not a machine composed of parts that can be engineered separately. I wonder if the current state of religious belief in the western world has more to do with this dominance of a particular understanding of intelligence? If religious faith is not about a cause and effect and focussed views of life, but a holistic understanding that life is more akin to a functioning organism, then both the decline and contemporaneous continuation of faith are understandable.
This is a clip from a talk - well a sermon - by a fellow named Neil deGrasse Tyson. I had not heard of him before a friend sent this to me. He speaks well and is personable, but after a few days of ruminating on his talk I began to wonder at the foundation underlying the opinions expressed here. He uses percentages of highly educated people (those with graduate degrees is his definition here) who believe in a personal God. I note he does exclude, whether deliberately or not I don't know, those who have a more intellectual perception of the divine as an amorphous force rather than a personal God. In his schema, the higher up the IQ scale the well educated go, the less likely they are to believe in a personal God. Thus he presents statistics (with no indication of their source, though that may have appeared in a full version of his talk) that 40% of highly educated (again his definition) people do believe in a personal God, but among the most intelligent, this drops to 7%. His twist is, that he is surprised that the number of the most intelligent who do believe in a personal God is so high. He expected none or maybe some statistically insignificant percentage. Then he ruminates on the obverse of a coin I have often considered, that perhaps some people are wired in their brains to believe in a personal God and no amount of evidence can change that. My take has always been that atheists are persons who are missing some wiring connections in their physical brains that would have allowed them to believe in God.
Anyway, this long paragraph is really to set the context for something tangential to his argument, but which is nonetheless damaging to his rationale. His definitions of 'highly intelligent' and the most intelligent in society restricts this last, highest category to scientists. For some time now, I have been meditating on intelligence. I watched this video of an English psychiatrist who has written a book drawing on the newest research into the functions of the left and right brain hemispheres. Prior to this research the belief was that the right brain dominates artistic ability of all sorts: painting, poetry, writing, music and so on, while the left brain controls practical abilities such as science, auto mechanics, engineering, construction etc. The more nuanced view today, apparently, is that everybody uses their entire brain, but that the right side governs a contextual view of life, while the left brain directs focussed looks at life. This is similar to the old view as art of any type often, but not always, requires a sense of the overall context of the place of humanity in the world, while science, engineering, plumbing, auto mechanics all require that a person focus narrowly on a problem or enhancement within the whole in order to improve or repair. From this point, he notes that in the modern world, the activities and understandings governed by the left side of the brain are rewarded and therefore dominant in how we organize our lives today, our societies. He goes on to enter the world of social History and believes that this is a product of the industrial revolution, which required at its base, a division of life's activities into discrete categories that could be focussed on while ignoring to a large extent the whole. Thus for example, in my field, the history of religion, you study one religion and only secondarily look at its relations with other religions. Religious studies' textbooks are always presented with chapters devoted to singular religious faiths, and within those chapters, the religion presented is itself carved up into rituals, texts, social life and so on. It is exceedingly rare these days to find any sort of history text or scholarly monograph that attempts to put all this together in context - in any field of history. I have tried to overcome this approach in my own teaching, but I have no idea whether I have succeeded in this, or not.
This has resonated with me in terms of the atheist link above, where Mr. Tyson considers those individuals who are scientists to be the elite of the intelligentsia, and those who are most narrowly focussed to be the elite of the elite. His definition of intelligence rests on this narrow focus, this giving of overarching privilege to the left hemisphere of the brain. Here I am reminded of the comedy series 'The Big Bang Theory' which mocks this sort of intelligence. The genius is this show about experimental physicists is a character, Sheldon Cooper, who is barely functional in the world of human relationships as his entire intelligence revolves around his narrow field of study and anything outside that is secondary and external, and to him, risible.
Next I began considering the idea of EQ (Emotional Quotient or Emotional Intelligence) as opposed to IQ. Intelligence quotient tests were devised in the early 20th century and EQ or EI dates from the late 20th century. IQ tests purport to test intelligence and are also purported to be an indicator of future success in life. This all begs the questions, what is intelligence and what, indeed, is success. Is a great artist who dies in poverty a success or a failure? EI purports to measure the degree to which an individual relates to others. Both are based on the idea that you can measure human beings and both require socially embedded definitions of 'success' or 'failure', usually determined by 'how much money you make' or 'how famous you are' or 'what degree of power' you have. In other words both, although usually presented in opposition to one another, are based on the left brained view of life, and neither, though EI comes closer, look at context, or view life holistically.
All the forgoing has deep implications for the state of religiosity, and religious institutions today. Religion, any religion, consists firstly of a holistic view of existence. It doesn't matter if you are a Buddhist who rejects any idea of God or gods, or a devout Muslim or Christian, your essential worldview is holistic. It requires you to put all the pieces together, or rather it assumes that existence is integrated and not a machine composed of parts that can be engineered separately. I wonder if the current state of religious belief in the western world has more to do with this dominance of a particular understanding of intelligence? If religious faith is not about a cause and effect and focussed views of life, but a holistic understanding that life is more akin to a functioning organism, then both the decline and contemporaneous continuation of faith are understandable.
Tuesday, April 21, 2015
Time (for ordinary people)
While marking final exams my mind flew off on this tangent: time (as I was procrastinating, this seemed a good tangent).
When does a day begin? For practical purposes, when you get up in the morning and it ends when you go to bed at night. For scientific purposes - that is, in the never ending effort to carve all existence up into verifiable, countable, examinable, testable, categories, the day begins at one minute after midnight and ends at midnight 24 hours later. For religions, there are similar idiosyncrasies. If you are Jewish, for example, the day begins at dusk and runs to dusk 24 hours later. So Saturday night is really Sunday and Sunday night is Monday. For Christians the day used to follow the 'get up in the morning, go to bed at night rule, but a few decades back in order to either attempt to smooth out some of the inconsistencies between the Old and New Testaments, or to give recognition to the Jewish roots of Christianity, the dusk to dusk rule was followed. Sort of. Not really. Almost. If you are Catholic you can go to Mass at 5 on a Saturday evening and satisfy the rule for attending Sunday Mass. Get home after six and you are free to party, drink, watch a movie, stay up late, and then sleep late on Sunday all having fulfilled this obligation. But. You may also attend a 7 p.m. Mass on Sunday evening, which if this new ordering of time means anything, should not be Sunday Mass but Monday.
Oh well. O Tempus, O Mores! (Cicero, 1st Oration against Catiline: a piece I had to sweat over in Latin class at university)
When does a day begin? For practical purposes, when you get up in the morning and it ends when you go to bed at night. For scientific purposes - that is, in the never ending effort to carve all existence up into verifiable, countable, examinable, testable, categories, the day begins at one minute after midnight and ends at midnight 24 hours later. For religions, there are similar idiosyncrasies. If you are Jewish, for example, the day begins at dusk and runs to dusk 24 hours later. So Saturday night is really Sunday and Sunday night is Monday. For Christians the day used to follow the 'get up in the morning, go to bed at night rule, but a few decades back in order to either attempt to smooth out some of the inconsistencies between the Old and New Testaments, or to give recognition to the Jewish roots of Christianity, the dusk to dusk rule was followed. Sort of. Not really. Almost. If you are Catholic you can go to Mass at 5 on a Saturday evening and satisfy the rule for attending Sunday Mass. Get home after six and you are free to party, drink, watch a movie, stay up late, and then sleep late on Sunday all having fulfilled this obligation. But. You may also attend a 7 p.m. Mass on Sunday evening, which if this new ordering of time means anything, should not be Sunday Mass but Monday.
Oh well. O Tempus, O Mores! (Cicero, 1st Oration against Catiline: a piece I had to sweat over in Latin class at university)
Sunday, March 1, 2015
The Narcissism Epidemic, Atheism, and the decline of Christianity
This morning while doing morning things, I watched this youtube interview with W. Keith Campbell:
The Narcissism Epidemic
In it Steve Paikin of TVOntario is the interviewer on his The Agenda show. They do not mention religion, but about three-quarters through the interview I realized that the decline of Christianity in the West is symptomatic of the rise of narcissism. By narcissism, I should add, Keith Campbell does not mean ordinary pride in accomplishments, but a culture where too many people base their lives and actions around their own wants and desires and needs. This got me to thinking about Richard Dawkins and an essential view of atheism, expressed in this debate with the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams over faith and atheism: Richard Dawkins, Rowan Williams, Anthony Kenny: "Human Beings & Ultimate Origin" Debate. In it, amongst many other points, Richard Dawkins states his belief that existence began as an accident. It is fundamental to many religions that there is purpose at the heart of reality and existence. According to essential atheism, there is no overarching, fundamental purpose to the universe, including life or inanimate objects - to everything in short. When I initially mulled over that one statement of his, I saw that you must, as an individual atheist, be narcissistic in order to live - because if there is no overarching, pre-existing purpose to life then each person must create that purpose within - that meaning only subsists in your own head - cogito ergo sum, that famous statement by Descartes is here taken to its extreme position: I think, therefore, I am. Thus in a world where narcissism has become the default social reality, any religion, but in the case of the West, Christianity, will decline because once one strips away all the complex details (I am reading Leviticus right now and that book is all about details), Christianity is about purpose lying as the foundation of everything. Also, Christianity contradicts this narcissistic basis of atheism in its two fundamental precepts: 1. love of God and 2. love of others. Christianity is being rejected because it violates narcissism, not because it is scientifically unprovable, or illogical, or did or did not cause wars, but because at root it tells individuals to think of oneself third, if at all.
The Narcissism Epidemic
In it Steve Paikin of TVOntario is the interviewer on his The Agenda show. They do not mention religion, but about three-quarters through the interview I realized that the decline of Christianity in the West is symptomatic of the rise of narcissism. By narcissism, I should add, Keith Campbell does not mean ordinary pride in accomplishments, but a culture where too many people base their lives and actions around their own wants and desires and needs. This got me to thinking about Richard Dawkins and an essential view of atheism, expressed in this debate with the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams over faith and atheism: Richard Dawkins, Rowan Williams, Anthony Kenny: "Human Beings & Ultimate Origin" Debate. In it, amongst many other points, Richard Dawkins states his belief that existence began as an accident. It is fundamental to many religions that there is purpose at the heart of reality and existence. According to essential atheism, there is no overarching, fundamental purpose to the universe, including life or inanimate objects - to everything in short. When I initially mulled over that one statement of his, I saw that you must, as an individual atheist, be narcissistic in order to live - because if there is no overarching, pre-existing purpose to life then each person must create that purpose within - that meaning only subsists in your own head - cogito ergo sum, that famous statement by Descartes is here taken to its extreme position: I think, therefore, I am. Thus in a world where narcissism has become the default social reality, any religion, but in the case of the West, Christianity, will decline because once one strips away all the complex details (I am reading Leviticus right now and that book is all about details), Christianity is about purpose lying as the foundation of everything. Also, Christianity contradicts this narcissistic basis of atheism in its two fundamental precepts: 1. love of God and 2. love of others. Christianity is being rejected because it violates narcissism, not because it is scientifically unprovable, or illogical, or did or did not cause wars, but because at root it tells individuals to think of oneself third, if at all.
Friday, February 6, 2015
Religious Studies and History: two views of the same thing
This morning, while sipping my first caffeine of the day, I sat quietly looking out my kitchen window at bare tree limbs, blue sky, scattered clouds and snow. Meditating I guess, or perhaps just thinking. Anyway, for no particular reason I began to think about the study of religion through two different lenses. Most universities in Canada have Departments of Religion, or Religious Studies (not all, my own doctoral alma mater the University of Guelph does not), and they graduate individuals who study religion in all its aspects. These departments are the successors of theology departments. Again, most but not all, universities in Canada had church origins. For example, the University of Toronto began as an Anglican school, the University of Windsor was Catholic, Queen's was Presbyterian and my undergrad and MA school McMaster was Baptist. When the provincial governments dangled 30 bits of silver before each institution they gave up their church control and secularized. (One of the last holdouts was Waterloo Lutheran which did not accept the money until very late in the game and transmogrified into Wilfred Laurier - maybe so they didn't have to change their monogrammed linen).
After secularizing, these universities kept a church college or colleges to act as a seminary in most cases, but suspended their rights to grant full Arts or Sciences degrees. In the place of theology they tended to institute departments of Religion or Religious Studies, where religion would be examined in a social scientific manner.
About ten or so years ago, I faced the prospect of no work, and saw that my school, the University of Guelph did not offer much in the way of the study of religion. So I came up with the idea of a World Religions' course in the History department, as I am an historian. This was accepted, and was structured and taught through an historical, not a social scientific view of religion. While religious studies courses and textbooks include the historical development of religion, this is not their central focus. For my course history came first, and as a social/cultural historian, the complex dance or duet of religion and society as it changed over time was the focus.
While searching for a textbook to complement the course material, I found that most were written by graduates of religious studies programmes and not appropriate therefore for an historical approach. I did find one finally, written by one of the pioneers of the study of world religions, the late Ninian Smart. I have yet to find another that does as well as his 1999 second edition. The many, many world religions' texts approach religion overall and in particular cases from the religious studies focus, while I remain an unrepentant historian first and foremost.
So what is the difference? Well in the religious studies' approach, presentism reigns supreme -that is, a particular religion is presented as it exists today (well, today being the rough time it took to produce the book). This involves the beliefs, rituals, architecture, art, geographical spread, ethnicity or cross-ethnicity, and a section on history. From what I can see in their books, they are primarily sociological studies with some anthropology thrown in, spiced with a dash of history. In the approach I take, that of the historian, I emphasize and focus on the story - the history of religion in general and the particular religion being presented. This involves the same facets found in religious studies, but with an emphasis on change within social context. This assumes that some aspects do change and some do not and this too is a matter to be discussed and studied.
This approach is, I am sure, a disappointment to some of my students as they expect to learn about, memorize and repeat on tests and exams the rituals and customs of people of different religions along with their theologies. What they get is very little of that and lot of how and perhaps why, religion functions within different social settings at different periods of history and how and why change occurs.
The problem I have had with the religious studies approach is the way in which each religion tends to be hermetically sealed off from every other and the implication that the views and beliefs and practices of ordinary followers mirror that of religious professionals.
I think I stress ritual and belief too lightly and will work to change that, but am convinced that the study of the place of religion in life itself is and should be the primary focus, not the doctrine or dogma or ritual practices.
After secularizing, these universities kept a church college or colleges to act as a seminary in most cases, but suspended their rights to grant full Arts or Sciences degrees. In the place of theology they tended to institute departments of Religion or Religious Studies, where religion would be examined in a social scientific manner.
About ten or so years ago, I faced the prospect of no work, and saw that my school, the University of Guelph did not offer much in the way of the study of religion. So I came up with the idea of a World Religions' course in the History department, as I am an historian. This was accepted, and was structured and taught through an historical, not a social scientific view of religion. While religious studies courses and textbooks include the historical development of religion, this is not their central focus. For my course history came first, and as a social/cultural historian, the complex dance or duet of religion and society as it changed over time was the focus.
While searching for a textbook to complement the course material, I found that most were written by graduates of religious studies programmes and not appropriate therefore for an historical approach. I did find one finally, written by one of the pioneers of the study of world religions, the late Ninian Smart. I have yet to find another that does as well as his 1999 second edition. The many, many world religions' texts approach religion overall and in particular cases from the religious studies focus, while I remain an unrepentant historian first and foremost.
So what is the difference? Well in the religious studies' approach, presentism reigns supreme -that is, a particular religion is presented as it exists today (well, today being the rough time it took to produce the book). This involves the beliefs, rituals, architecture, art, geographical spread, ethnicity or cross-ethnicity, and a section on history. From what I can see in their books, they are primarily sociological studies with some anthropology thrown in, spiced with a dash of history. In the approach I take, that of the historian, I emphasize and focus on the story - the history of religion in general and the particular religion being presented. This involves the same facets found in religious studies, but with an emphasis on change within social context. This assumes that some aspects do change and some do not and this too is a matter to be discussed and studied.
This approach is, I am sure, a disappointment to some of my students as they expect to learn about, memorize and repeat on tests and exams the rituals and customs of people of different religions along with their theologies. What they get is very little of that and lot of how and perhaps why, religion functions within different social settings at different periods of history and how and why change occurs.
The problem I have had with the religious studies approach is the way in which each religion tends to be hermetically sealed off from every other and the implication that the views and beliefs and practices of ordinary followers mirror that of religious professionals.
I think I stress ritual and belief too lightly and will work to change that, but am convinced that the study of the place of religion in life itself is and should be the primary focus, not the doctrine or dogma or ritual practices.
Saturday, January 10, 2015
Epiphany
The other day I put Christmas away. I took the tree down and put it outside to be recycled into mulch. I boxed up the ornaments we have inside, especially the crèche. Outside I took the wreath off the front door, removed the red bows arrayed on bushes and railings and the Christmas light from bushes. Tuesday was Epiphany, or 12th night, the 12th day of Christmas and the formal end of the Christmas season. As most people today who celebrate Christmas are not actually Christians they don't realize that Christmas Day is the 1st day of Christmas and that 12th night celebrates the arrival of the 3 Magi to venerate the Christ child. The name epiphany is curious. Its Greek roots mean 'reveal', but the word can mean in a secular sense a moment of sudden revelation, usually important and in the Christian sense when Christ was revealed as God for the first time.
As I walk the streets at night with my dog, I notice that many houses still have their Christmas lights up. Mostly trees are gone from living rooms - often removed within a day or two of Christmas day. The lights and the trees for many are set up early in December and gone by the 26th. This all reminds me that Christmas has become something both similar and different to the holiday celebrated by practicing, believing Christians themselves. The spirit of this season seems to be the same for both non believers as for believers - a time of feasting and celebration and gift giving - of joy, in short. But it has little to do with thinking about the birth of Christ for many, perhaps most in our society. This does not bother me much but is a curious fact that is a mirror image of the origins of this holiday. This date was chosen for a celebration of Christ's birth in order to piggy back on the pagan winter solstice or Saturnalia. These sorts of deliberate syncretism made Christianity more popular as ordinary people did not have to abandon favourite celebrations entirely. The irony is that secular people in the West have now incorporated the Christian holiday of Christmas into a secular celebration in order that they not have to abandon the favourite parts of this holiday. This all means of course that Epiphany has been lost in the neb-secular feast of Christmas that runs from sometime in December to January 1.
As I walk the streets at night with my dog, I notice that many houses still have their Christmas lights up. Mostly trees are gone from living rooms - often removed within a day or two of Christmas day. The lights and the trees for many are set up early in December and gone by the 26th. This all reminds me that Christmas has become something both similar and different to the holiday celebrated by practicing, believing Christians themselves. The spirit of this season seems to be the same for both non believers as for believers - a time of feasting and celebration and gift giving - of joy, in short. But it has little to do with thinking about the birth of Christ for many, perhaps most in our society. This does not bother me much but is a curious fact that is a mirror image of the origins of this holiday. This date was chosen for a celebration of Christ's birth in order to piggy back on the pagan winter solstice or Saturnalia. These sorts of deliberate syncretism made Christianity more popular as ordinary people did not have to abandon favourite celebrations entirely. The irony is that secular people in the West have now incorporated the Christian holiday of Christmas into a secular celebration in order that they not have to abandon the favourite parts of this holiday. This all means of course that Epiphany has been lost in the neb-secular feast of Christmas that runs from sometime in December to January 1.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)