Some traditional carols are “nonsense” and have turned Jesus into a Father Christmas figure, according to a leading bishop.Away in a Manger cannot be sung “without embarrassment”, Once in Roy al David’s City is “Victorian behaviour control”; and O Come, All Ye Faithful is misleading, said the Bishop of Croydon, the Rt Rev Nick Baines.
He blamed the much-loved carols for adding to confusion over the season’s real meaning and turning Jesus into a figure as fictitious as Father Christmas.
While others defended the traditional songs as “joyful” and “triumphant”, the bishop complained that the carols have contributed to the story of Christ’s birth being seen “as just one more story alongside the panto and fairy stories”.
In a new book published by the Church of England, Why Wish You a Merry Christmas, the bishop argues that carols encourage images of Christmas that have more to do with Victorian sentiment than the Biblical account of Christ’s birth.
“I always find it a slightly bizarre sight when I see parents and grandparents at a nativity play singing Away in a Manger as if it actually related to reality,” he said.
"
I think the parents and grandparents sing along more to give their kids confidence onstage than to show they take the carol as historical fact.
There are loads of wierder victorian songs, such as \”The Cherry Tree Carol\” They must have really been off their cakes on laudanum.
“I always find it a slightly bizarre sight when I see parents and grandparents at a nativity play singing Away in a Manger as if it actually related to reality,” he said.
Then I’m sure he’d be delighted to have seen my 3rd Class version of the Nativity, in which Little Donkey was replaced with Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, Dustin the Turkey turned up to see Jesus, and Mary and Joseph escaped from Herod in a UFO at the end.
We sang “traditional carols” like “40 Shades of Green”, “Tragedy” (with the Steps routine), and Chitty Chitty Bang Bang.
It’s a wonder than none of us were excommunicated.
I got to play the Sky News reporter, ah the memories
Well the carols are symptomatic of the general strangeness of the whole package. My born again aunt has a habit of bringing up “baby Jesus” with regard to anything remotely blasphemous in any conversation about Jesus, not simply ones about the nativity. I find myself itching to remind her he lived to the age of 33 years old, and would have probably cringed if he knew someone was talking about him like he was still in nappies.
The hymn that always confused me at primary school was “Jerusalem”… you know the tune “And did those feet in ancient time walk upon England’s mountains green?”
Is the author seriously implying that Jesus, the penniless son of a middle eastern carpenter went on a gap year bumming around Europe on Joseph’s platignum card? How tired would that donkey be? I find that very hard to believe.
I find it slightly bizarre when I hear people saying the season’s real meaning is Jesus..
Er, it IS just one more story alongside the panto and fairy stories (like, honestly, baby implanted in tummy by god?), Victorian additions or not.
‘“I always find it a slightly bizarre sight when I see parents and grandparents at a nativity play singing Away in a Manger as if it actually related to reality,” he said.’
I find it a slightly bizarre idea that someone thinks they can tell whether people feel that what they are singing relates to reality. Is it body language or something? I mean, how on EARTH could you tell?
I sing carols. I’m an atheist. So no, I personally don’t think they relate to reality when I sing them, they just relate to that christmassy feeling (and judging by how full churches are at Christmas, and how empty they are for the rest of the year, I’d say I’m not the only one in that).
Dan – yeah let’s all get a Yule log to burn in the fire.
I think the guy should be more concerned with the fact that at this time of year every kid in a church school gets the ‘sometimes Jesus says no’ story ( so what’s the point in him then? ).
I just wonder what “real jesus” is he comparing the “victorian jesus” to?… the only evidence for this Jesus is in his Bible, a document that has little historical weight considering it doesn’t cross reference with the rest of history anyway. Perhaps the old chap is halfway to realizing that it’s all a big confidence trick after all?
He shouldn’t worry that Jesus seems as fictious as Father Christmas….there is WAY more evidence that Father Christmas exists than Jesus. Where do those toys come from on Christmas morning anyway? Why would grown men dress up as Santa? What? I’m just sayin’….lol
whatever would he make of “f*k christmas” by eric idle?
Ho! Ho! Ho!
Christmas carols were banned before, by Oliver Cromwell in the 17th Century. He felt Christmas was far too happy. Glad to see things have progressed.
So??
Just don’t sing it then, mr bishop. A bit of mind control on your side would not harm. Sometimes you can start to see a little too much … (clouds).
Once the bishop chooses to sell the idea that winter is even the right time to celebrate Jesus’ birthday, he’s already engaging in lying to begin with right there. Even if I grant him that he’s delusional enough to actually believe the Bible is telling the truth, even from THAT point of view, the Bible describes events in such a way that Jesus’ birth was occurring at the same time as when people were planting their fields – which would make it spring, not winter. And he’s got only Christianity to blame for that because it’s the Church itself that decided to sell the idea that it happened in December – a strategy explicitly chosen to make it correspond to winter solstice celebrations already in place.
Blaming the mythification of Jesus’ birthday on Victorian era carols puts the blame over a millennium too late.
When I was still a Christian I really struggled with the nativity story (which anyway only occurs in one gospel). Looking back, I think it’s a great example of the Jewish story-telling form of “Medrash”. That is, essentially, a pantomime type of story meant to illustrate some wider idea rather than convey a factual history.
As Steven points out, the Church then decided to relocate this particular piece of pantomime to the Midwinter Solstice. Now is not a good time to complain that people have grown out of these pantomimes. Perhaps indeed the good Bishop is half way through this growing up process and will one day be a grown-up Bishop like Spong.
Anyway the real meaning of Xmas is “X”.
“I always find it a slightly bizarre sight when I see parents and grandparents at a nativity play singing Away in a Manger as if it actually related to reality,” he said.
Em… I always find it bizarre when I hear Bishops talking about the bible as if it actually related to reality…
Personally, I’d recommend watching Zeitgeist for this one, more specifically the first half (but watch all of it). I think it is factually incorrect on a couple of things, but on the whole it’ll give you a much better idea of what and where “Christmas”, Christianity and Jesus came from. He shares his birthday with quite a few Gods.. what a surprise….
Link below to watch it… (there are probably better quality versions out there if you look)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3366161662101696005#
Kris
Let’s get this straight.
The story involves an angel delivering an invitation to shepherds, and three wise men following an anomalous astronomical phenomenon to witness a virgin who, having being impregnated by the supernatural creator of the universe which felt the need to father itself (so that it could later get itself sacrificed to itself), gives birth to the magical saviour of the human race.
And this bishop scorns Away in a Manger because it contains the line “no crying he makes” – which, obviously, is totally unrealistic. Of course baby Jesus would cry! He would be abnormal if he didn’t. How can adults sing such a line without embarrassment?
This is the funniest thing I have read all year.
what a miserable sod!
such a line without embarrassment?
This is the funniest thing I have read all year
of the universe which felt the need to father itself (so that it could later get itself sacrificed to itself),