Some Background On Hislop

I do apologize that today's post will be academic and boring. I never enjoy boring, but sometimes I find it useful.

Last year, I purchased a couple books by historian Ronald Hutton. I wanted to learn more about Halloween and Christmas, mistletoe and druids, and other such homely things long condemned in the extreme by Armstrongism. Turns out, as usual, we have been lied to by those busybody purveyors of paganism in the Church of God splinters (for example, read the posts "Samhain Was Not On October 31" and "Misinformed on Mistletoe").
Lately, I have been reading Hutton's "Blood and Mistletoe: The History of Druids in Britain". It is a difficult book, with long, tedious tracts of background information about authors since the 1600s who contributed to our [mis]understanding of Druids. It is packed with information. It was intentionally thorough, but its thorough nature makes it dry and laborious. By sheer force of will and natural stubbornness I am determined to finish it. I am only halfway through. Pray for me.
But it is not a bad book so far as it goes. Actually, it has some fantastic insights.

A curious thing occurred to me as I read it - this material applies to Alexander Hislop.

You might remember Alexander Hislop from such things as "The Two Babylons: Papal Worship Proved To Be the Worship of Nimrod And His Wife" - one of the most ridiculous pieces of anti-historical nonsense ever to waste paper and ink. A good amount of the garbage that came from Herbert Armstrong and "the most accurately informed historian in the world" Herman Hoeh was predicated on the toxic sludge left for us by Hislop.

Hislop was a Presbyterian minister who joined the Free Church of Scotland in 1843. Presbyterians and all Protestants are considered "daughters of the harlot church" (re. REV. 17: 5) by Armstrongism, and condemned. This one man gets a pass for purely utilitarian reasons. Notice that date there - 1843. What else was happening then? Why William Miller's Great Disappointment, of course. The 1800s were bad years for Christendom.
Hislop did consider the Catholic Church a harlot, but did not associate himself with being a daughter of it. His entire book was a condemnation of the Roman Catholic system. This was par for the course in the early 1800s. Hislop was not by any means alone. He was a product of his time. That is what Ronald Hutton's book makes clear.

In Hutton's book, he reviews several historians beginning in the 1600s who were instrumental in the study of the Druids of the British Isles. Hutton walks us through who these authors were, what their lives were like, who they knew, who inspired them, and other such details so that we can understand why they wrote what they did. Patterns emerge.

The authors of the 1600s were like babes in the woods. They had nothing to go on but ancient writers like Pliny and Julius Caesar, a scant few stone henges sticking out of the ground, some folklore, and the Bible. Every missing detail was filled in by pure imagination. But that wasn't abnormal in those days. That's how most everyone did most everything. It's not like the science of archeology was there to guide them.
The authors of the 1700s had the exact same resources, now colored by the fancies of earlier writers. Their main take was that the Druids were isolated and therefore kept a more pure form of the one true ancient religion of Noah's day. They lacked the divine revelation given to the Hebrews, but otherwise kept Noah's religion better than anyone else had. There was a sense of national pride here. That Britannia could be the home of such noble savages was uplifting to the national spirit. It was a tool to unify the United Kingdom yet provide a way to remain attached to old customs of Saxony, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales before they disappeared. It was also a poke in the eye of the Catholics. After Queen Elizabeth I solidified England as Protestant, and after the civil war "of three nations", the divide between Protestants and Catholics was growing. Anything and everything was fair game to use against Catholicism.
The authors of the 1800s yet had the same resources, yet again colored by earlier writers, but the Industrial Revolution and contact with the Far East afforded by the British Empire was changing their view of the Druids. In Wales and Ireland, the Druids maintained their positive perception, but in England, rather than a pure and proud people, the Druids were seen as murderous and thoroughly corrupt. The Druids were no better than the easterners who practiced head hunting, human sacrifice, and other various cruelties of rank paganism. These points were all used against Catholicism, but they had now begun to be used against Protestantism as well. Any organized and influential ministry was becoming fair game.

Bear in mind, none of these people knew what the Druids actually did outside of the details left by the Romans. Few of them actually trusted the Romans. Roman renditions were more likely propaganda than they were honest telling of wrote fact. We still today know barely more than they did and we still use mostly the same resources. We might know the stone henges predated the Druids by quite some time, but we don't know what the Druids did with them, if anything. We still have people who fill in the blanks with wild imagination. And we still use what we find in games of religious one-upmanship.
The more things change....

But here is what I've been driving at --
You might see in here the seeds of Alexander Hislop's approach. For example, Catholic bashing, an ancient single religion, beliefs and practices from the Middle East coming to Britain, precise details conjured from imagination built upon scant facts, and etc. You might also see in here the seeds of ideas such as we find in "The United States and Britain In Propehcy" - a book Herbert Armstrong plagiarized from J. H. Allen's "Judah's Scepter and Joseph's Birthright". (We have articles on this. Go to the Categories page and look for British-Israelism.)

The notion that Alexander Hislop knew what he was talking is laughable. Babylon wasn't even unearthed yet and the language barely translated by the time he finished his book. Serious scholars were calling him out from the very beginning. He had very little facts to rely on and none of his claims line up with what we have learned since. Why would he do this? Why would he make things up whole cloth like this? Why would he fill entire books with little other than fanciful imaginations?
Because that's what most people did back then! They filled in details with imagination and attacked the Catholics with it. Hislop is a product of his time.

And why would Armstrongism give him a pass to this day; to this very minute ignoring everything that has been proven over and over and over again to be false? Because it's convenient.
God's truth? Not even close.

Let this be a lesson to use only the most reliable sources and to employ older material only with utmost caution.

I don't condemn Hislop. If we were born then and there, we'd probably be doing much the same things. I don't like this silly notion of moral superiority based on what time we live in. He wasn't evil. He did what he thought was right given what resources he had. It's just that the result of his works are entirely destructive. It's the works, not the man, that I criticize here. He is almost as much a victim of this as we are. His works should have been forgotten but they were abused by charlatans and false prophets.
Herbert Armstrong, on the other hand, knew good and well what he was doing and was a liar and a thief on purpose. Knowingly. Willfully. I will not extend him this same courtesy. To him, or to the present-day leadership in the COGs who have every resource at their fingertips to right past wrongs but refuse because it's too convenient to their bank accounts.

************

It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )

Acts 17:11

************

Break Your Addiction To End-Times

Several times over several years, As Bereans Did has demonstrated Armstrongism is a branch of the Seventh Day Adventist movement. Even though Armstrongism decries Adventism as a false church, it is undeniably a demonstrable fact of history that Armstrongism is a branch of Adventism, and the core doctrines within Armstrongism originate with Ellen G White. Among those core doctrines I refer to are the seventh day Sabbath and pre-millennialism - and by pre-millennialism I mean the doomsday prophecy. That is where I want to focus today.
But first, I want to point something out.

If you look at the history of the Adventist movement, which came first, the doomsday prophecy or the Sabbath? Answer: the doomsday prophecy.
William Miller, founder of the Adventist movement (aka. Millerites), was entirely a Protestant doomsday prophet. That is the reason for the name Adventist after all - they proclaimed (and still proclaim) the imminent Second Advent of Christ. Doomsday prophecy is right there in the name. Miller was at least honorable enough to give it up in late 1843 when his prophecies failed for the second time. He left his own movement but the movement continues on, still heaping failure upon failure in their doomsday prophecies to this very minute.
Ellen G White, the new de facto head of the movement, invented some ridiculous excuse regarding the failed prophecies and then continued on as if it was all going swimmingly. It wasn't about law at this time. The Whites were introduced to the Sabbath doctrine in late 1844. (For more on the history, read our article "COG Worldwide Association Claims False Roots (long version)".) So, the Sabbath doctrin which inspired the Seventh Day part of the name did not come until some years after the doomsday prophecy which inspired the Adventist part.
The COG7 split from the Adventists in the mid-1800s. Herbert Armstrong was hired as a COG7 minister. He was still technically a COG7 Minister when he started The Plain Truth magazine. What was he printing in 1934? Doomsday prophecies. He predicted the return of Christ in 1936. When that failed, he simply changed his formula and continued on as if it was all going swimmingly. (For more on this, see our article "All Systems Are Go".) This is how it went until the day he died.

Why take you through that? To demonstrate that first and foremost the Adventist/Armstrongist movement is about doomsday prophecy. Before there was a Sabbath doctrine, before there ever was a debate over holy days, before a single word was mentioned about meats or tithes, there was doomsday prophecy. One can make a solid case that is still the core message of the current Armstrongist splinter groups. I defy you to find a single big name in the entire movement today that doesn't go about predicting the time of Jesus' return. The movement is not about first and foremost about law, it's about doom. Or, in other words, fear.

But why does doomsday prophecy have such a hold on people? What is it about us that makes us attracted to it in the first place, and what holds us enthralled for decades after? What causes so many to dump their life savings and life's dreams into the bottomless pit of the doomsday prophet's pockets? The answer is complicated and nuanced. It's slightly different for everyone. But slightly different is still mostly the same. I believe it boils down to fear.

People look around at this world at the ponderous mess we humans have created in what would otherwise have been a beautiful world, and we are inherently disappointed. We know it could be better - SHOULD be better. We are afraid of disease. We are afraid of persecution. We are afraid of enemies foreign and domestic. We are afraid of natural disaster. We are afraid of ruin. We are afraid of the past, present, and the future. Fear, fear, fear, fear. So, we long for a better future, a happier future - the better, happier future promised in the Bible. 

I think doomsday prophecy is first and foremost an escape. A tragic escape, based on what many call "fear porn". It's a coping mechanism with a heaping spoonful of schadenfreude.
I think doomsday prophecy is also a means to get some justice in a world practically devoid of it. When bad things happen, we can say it was deserved. Finally, they got theirs. And someday, someday very soon, the people who hurt me are going to get theirs, too.
I also think doomsday prophecy is a means to get some hope. We can cope with many evils so long as we have an inkling of hope. I just have to endure for 3 or 4 more years.

I could go on and on analyzing it, but that's not what I'm on about today. I don't want to talk about the problem. I want to talk about what to do about it. I just didn't think it best to talk about a solution without talking a little about the problem.
There is one more part of the problem I want to mention because I think it's key to the solution.

We look at all this disappointment ...and we blame it all on anyone but ourselves.

You see, a critical part of the problem is we took ourselves out of the equation for both the cause and the solution. We tend to see ourselves only as victims of something we didn't cause and can't fix. The cause is that other people are godless, and doomsday prophecy becomes the solution. But that misses the mark.

Doomsday prophecy is like a drug. How do you break yourself from its grip? Recognize how you participated in the nastiness of this world in your own way, and because you did in fact help to cause this mess you can therefore take steps to change yourself and your own little sphere of this fallen world.
In a phrase: confess and repent.

"But xHWA, I did confess and I have repented. I am keeping the law as best as I can!" No, that's not what I mean. I am not talking about confessing sin and repenting to law-keeping. I am talking about confessing that you played a part in this fallen world. You have not always been the person you could have been - you SHOULD have been - to those people you've met along the way. In one way or the other, you helped this world to be the misery it is. Confess that. And I am saying that there is still time to try, in whatever small way you can, to make your own little corner of this world a brighter place. That is what I mean by repent.

You know the Lord's Prayer (aka. the Our Father)? It says, "Your kingdom come. Your will be done. On earth as it is in Heaven." (MAT. 6: 10). Let God come to your heart now. Let His patient, merciful, loving will be done through you now. Let His kingdom reign in your heart this very day. Be a light in an otherwise dark world (MAT. 5: 14-16).
In the mind of a person addicted to doomsday prophecy, this prayer points to some future time. To a person who rejects doomsday prophecy, it refers to now and a future time. It referred to now when Jesus said it almost 2,000 years ago. It refers to now today. It is always now and in the future coming Kingdom. I talked about this in my article "Once And Future Kingdom - part II".

You break the yoke of doomsday prophecy and end-times by taking up your cross each day and following the promptings of the Holy Spirit each and every day from now on (MAT. 16: 24).

"But xHWA, I do follow Christ. I keep the Sabbath and tithe and help out around church." At no point did Jesus ever say, "Take up your cross and sit on your hands every seventh day." He didn't say, "Follow Me only on Saturdays." He didn't say, "Wait around until I return and then follow Me into charity." He didn't say, "Tithe and you're pretty much done following Me." He didn't say, "Follow Me but only with people at your local church."
Look at how Mark records Jesus' command to the Rich Young Ruler:

(MAR. 10: 21) Then Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, “One thing you lack: Go your way, sell whatever you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, take up the cross, and follow Me.

The man literally got done telling Jesus that he kept the Sabbath. That was great and all, because they were yet in the Old Covenant, but Jesus said to take it farther. That is where the man walked away. And that is where we all tend to walk away. When the onus falls on us to take responsibility for our own actions and our own calling to make this world a better place, we fall back on our efforts at law-keeping and we walk away, sad. Precisely as the Rich Young Ruler did.

Herbert Armstrong used to teach that making this world a better place is literally the same as fighting against God. Don't vote. Don't serve. Don't give to charity. Don't pray for. He said God is trying hard to punish this world, and by doing what Jesus clearly taught us to do in multiple places - working to make this a better world - we are fighting against God.
That's not what I read in my Bible.

Don't think I am pointing my comments at Armstrongists only. This blog is about Armstrongism, so naturally that is what I write about. In the interest of fairness, please allow me to hammer Christianity in general for this same thing.
In my own life, if I had to make a list of the top ten people who have done the most awful things to me, most of those would be Catholics. Almost all of them would be Christians. Maybe even all of them. (I don't actually have such a list, so I am just guessing.) So, yeah, in 2,000 years of Christianity we still have a miserable world. We Christians have collectively done a miserable job, for the most part. And guess what --- that includes me! Mea culpa!

But I'm off topic.

When you isolate yourself and dwell on your own fears and problems, the world becomes a prison. End-times becomes your salvation. But when you try to help others in their problems, you tend to forget about your own and the world becomes a better place. When you try to make yourself smile, it's difficult. When you try to make someone else smile, you smile, too. The Kingdom comes, little by little, as His good and loving will is done on this earth as it is in Heaven.

Sadly, we know we aren't going to fix it all. We know Jesus must return. We know there are things actively working against us. It's not like Christians behaving badly is the sole cause of this world's misery (though it certainly is a big part of it) therefore Christians behaving properly will not be the whole solution. You're not going to save the world. But, then again, I am not suggesting you should. I am suggesting you change yourself and your immediate sphere of influence. Don't let not being able to change the world stop you from taking responsibility for your own actions and reactions! Repent and change anyway. Make your personal area of influence a thing that praises the Lord. Withhold that sharp comment. Lend a hand. Do good things so people can see and praise God. If you were given a job to do, then do it. Do what you can do. Today.

How do you break your addiction to end-times? Change yourself. Live your life as if the Kingdom has already come. Become part of the solution. Make someone's life better today as you are able. One man died and the whole world changed. Who knows what great things can be done through you if you are willing.

************

It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )

Acts 17:11

************

Christmas Eras Tour - Part IV

Welcome back yet again! We are going on a tour of the seven eras of the history of Christmas. This is the final installment in the series.

As a reminder -
I have been reading "Stations of the Sun" by Ronald Hutton. One thing I noticed while reading is that Christmas went through stages. I see at least 7 eras in the past 2,000 years. Each one is marked by its own characteristics which were either greatly changed or outright abandoned in the following era. I thought it might be worthwhile to take us on a tour of those eras. Since this post pulls mainly from Hutton, and Hutton focuses mainly on England where Christmas is concerned, this post will, too.

In the previous post in this series, we reviewed eras 4 (Oppression) and 5 (Restoration). In those years, from 1517 to 1760, Christmas nearly died in the British Isles from religious opposition by the Puritans. Today, we will tour eras 6 (Industrial Revolution) and 7 (Modern).

In the first article in this series, I said, "I am particularly interested in showing how our modern Christmas is mostly a product of the three eras before it (ie. 7 is caused by 4, 5, & 6)." We saw Christmas gutted in 4 and salvaged in 5. We are about to see it completely reinvented in 6. Almost every tradition from era 3 that did not die out before now dies by the end of era 6 and is replaced by what we know today.

If you can find time in your busy schedule to read this, I hope you enjoy it! If your boss thinks you're staying busy as you read it, all the better.

INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION (1760 to 1915 AD)

The Industrial Revolution era is the time starting with the First Industrial Revolution, to the end of the Second Industrial Revolution. These dates are according to Britannica. It is an era most people don't hear about past grade school. During this era, we see a near abandonment of Christmas in some areas (again), its salvation (again), Christmas becomes more child-focused, and it shifts hard towards secularism. In this era, Christmas rapidly becomes what we know today.

When we left Christmas, it was in the step-down recovery room in an English hospital after flatlining on the table with the Puritans. When the Commonwealth was erased, all was looking to be on the mend. Then came the industrialists. As they say, "Out of the frying pan and into the fire."

In "Stations of the Sun" chapter 10, Ronald Hutton begins by explaining how boorish Christmas had become to the upper classes. He goes on to tell how the government and industrialists together stamped out the 12 days of Christmas by making them mandatory workdays.

If you recall, in Dickens' novel "A Christmas Carol", Bob Cratchit expected only one day off and was in turn expected to be back to work early the next morning. This reflected the standard work schedule. Industrialists tried to take Christmas, too, but the people wouldn't have it. Merchants were blamed.

This is certainly not how it was everywhere, because not everywhere was industrialized. Traditions survived in those pockets. Dickens gives us a hint of this, too, when Martha Cratchit states she intends to sleep in the next day. Keeping the old traditions alive is what Washington Irving's book "An Old Christmas" was about. He visits an English great house out in the country where the old traditions are purposefully kept. But on the main industrialization was the new reality, and it was coming for everyone.

Traditions from the feast days of the Saints had been moving to Christmas Day already for many years, but here the pace increased exponentially. Traditions that did not migrate died off. Only a few exceptions luckily bucked that trend. Without twelve days to celebrate, who had time for all that? Celebrating is fun but who wants to make their one day off more tiring than a regular workday? By the end of the century, the twelve days would be gone. What you think of as Christmas today, with a single day filled with every tradition, is the result.

Hutton credits the second salvation of Christmas Day in England mainly to these four things:

• A general nostalgia for pre-industrial times. People were longing for a more traditional, more charitable, more meaningful time.
• The Oxford Movement. Anglicans regained an appreciation for a more traditional (Catholic and anti-Puritan), high-liturgy approach.
• Popular authors and entertainers, the greatest of which was Charles Dickens.
• Prince Albert of England. A German and a family man.

And as goes England, so goes America.

In this era, mistletoe finally takes on its romantic overtones. Yes, this late. No, it was not ancient heathen fecundity, but post-Puritan prudishness. Christmas was about love, and love turns to romance. Some randy Brit had the industrious idea to employ mistletoe berries to elicit a kiss from some bonnie lass. Darned if it didn't work, too. The first place mistletoe is found in a romantic context is in a song from a musical comedy called "Two to One", which was published in 1784. From that point on, it is found more and more often in a romantic context. And from this time it spread out to other nations. (See our article "Misinformed On Mistletoe" for more.)

In America, the Puritanism of its early years was thawing slowly. The first Christmas party in the Whitehouse was in 1800. Consequently, that was the very year John Adams and his family moved into the Whitehouse as its first occupants. On November 1, 1800, John Adams moves in. Just under two months later, they have a Christmas party. How ironic Adams was from New England and a Puritan background. So, most early Americans shunned Christmas but not all.

At some undetermined point in the early 1800s, German gingerbread bakers - who had a special guild of their own which were the only ones allowed to bake gingerbread outside of the holidays and who would make the most elaborate objects of gingerbread - began making gingerbread houses, apparently inspired by the Grimm Brother's "Hansel and Gretel" (1812).

We would be criminally remiss to omit the great literary works of this era. Washington Irving (of Headless Horseman fame) wrote "A History Of New York", mostly involving the Dutch. In it, Irving shares many a tale and description of Saint Nicholas (aka. Sinterklaas). Although Protestant, the Dutch loved St. Nicholas, as did most sailors. In this version, Sinterklaas lays his finger on his nose, rides in a flying wagon, and drops toys to children down chimneys. (For more, see this article "The Father of Santa Claus", which I chose for you since it clearly and accurately lists out all of Irving's quotes.) But Irving was not just a promoter of Santa, he was a lover of all things Christmas and promoted it gladly.

These descriptions from Irving were the inspiration for a poem attributed to Clement Moore - the infamous "A Visit From Saint Nicholas" (aka. Twas The Night Before Christmas) in 1822. Here, Santa first gets his sleigh and eight reindeer. He is also miniaturized to better fit into stove pipes, as stoves had begun to replace large fireplaces. This poem was clearly written for children.

Together, these two works both invented and saved the Santa Claus tradition. The very first point in all of history where we can say the modern Santa Claus begins to come together is right here with these two very Christian authors. And nothing in their version comes from ancient paganism.

I want to pause to point something out. Santa Claus, whose creation we have built towards since the first post in this series, is a very complicated thing. So complicated, many people have completely incompatible descriptions of how we got here. Every origin story which puts Odin in as the origin of Santa is pure conjecture. That Odin was swapped out for Saint Nicholas in the distant past is a modern reinterpretation of history based on similarities in character traits rather than direct mentions from historical documents. For example, Odin wears a hat and cloak, has a flying horse, and is wise. That is what these Odin origins are built on. Frankly, it makes no sense due to 1) correlation does not prove causation, 2) they conflate Santa and other traditions in order to build similarities, and 3) the multitude of Odin's other traits. Odin, the wandering, one-eyed God of Fury and Visions, spear-bearing warrior, and leader of the Wild Hunt, is not a gift-bringer in any medieval or older source, nor is he generous and kind, nor even particularly concerned with children. They used to sacrifice humans, including children, to him. If anything, he should be the receiver of gifts. In contrast, the attributes of Saint Nicholas, such as generosity, kindness, selflessness, care for people and especially children, etc etc, may be legend but they are legends we have record of, and they are present in many cultures where there was no Odin at all. Plus, Nicholas is a gift-giver and is closely associated with Christmas time.
Santa is in reality a merger of Christian traditions: the German Saint Nicholas tradition and this new Dutch-American Saint Nicholas being the main two. According to some, the only two.
Father Christmas - who does not descend from Saint Nicholas - is separate from Santa and barely involved. Father Christmas can appear similarly to Odin with his cap and cloak, but as we saw in the last post, the earliest appearances of Father Christmas were nothing like Odin.

Another, secular German character and gift-giver, the Weihnachtsmann (Christmas Man), also was created in this period, but after Santa. The earliest mention is in 1835 in the song "Der Weihnachtsmann" by Heinrich Hoffman (who also authored the German national anthem). Even this character is not based on old paganism as there is no real description of him at first. Any physical attributes appear later.

After this era, Santa absorbs other traditions into one grand gift-bringer, with many names and localized attributes.

There is also a lesser-known author we should note here. In 1816, Ernst Hoffman wrote "The Nutcracker and The Mouse King", which would later inspire Peter Tchaikovsky.

Wreaths were used at Advent time for centuries, but in 1839, Johann Hinrich Wichern created the first Advent Wreath. It had four large candles representing the four Sundays of Advent, and twenty small red candles representing the other days. Modern Advent Wreaths only have the four large, colored candles. Some add a fifth white candle for Christmas Day.

Ghost of Christmas Past

Now we come to it; perhaps the most important thing to happen to Christmas in the last 500 years. Charles Dickens authored "A Christmas Carol" in 1843, arguably the single most popular book on Christmas outside of the Bible itself. Dickens pulls inspiration from his own life, the culture of his day, the Bible, Irving, Shakespeare (Hamlet), Dante (Inferno), and some other quaint locations such as Punch magazine (based off the Punch and Judy puppet shows - think of it as a Mad magazine of the early 1800s). It took a few decades to catch on in America since Dickens insulted the American people after a visit. If any single thing could be said to have been the most important thing that saved Christmas from the Industrial Revolution, it would be this.
When you read "A Christmas Carol", note how Dickens has three personifications of Christmas. There is the Ghost of Christmas Past, who is holiness and light. Dickens is expressing a longing for that better Christmas of eras past. There is the Ghost of Christmas Present, who is none other than Father Christmas (NOT Santa), the personification of Christmas itself. Dickens uses this Father Christmas as every bit the pro-Christmas propaganda as John Thomas did (from era 4). And the Ghost of Christmas Future, who comes as death personified, the Grim Reaper. There is hope in this dark future, though ...if the greedy, miserly, anti-Christmas paths of the Industrial Revolution be turned from.

"`Men’s courses will foreshadow certain ends, to which, if persevered in, they must lead,’ said Scrooge. `But if the courses be departed from, the ends will change. Say it is thus with what you show me.' "

If you wish to learn more specifically about Dickens' Christmas classic, Hillsdale College has a free online course called "Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol". You can learn such things as Dickens himself lived in Camden Town and his parents went to Debtor's Prison. I've just started it myself. Pretty good so far. It might be worth some of your free time.

Together, these three men - Irving, Moore, and Dickens - saved Christmas.

Here, some smaller Christmas traditions appear.

On the Feast of St. Nicholas (December 6), children in various countries would leave their shoes and socks out at night and wake up to candy or small treats or coins inside. I mentioned this in the previous era, stating its origin is unknown but quite old and most likely Dutch. After the Reformation, most Saint Nicholas traditions were copy/pasted to Christmas. This led to the tradition of stockings hung from the chimney with care on Christmas Eve. Although the shoe tradition is said to be Dutch, Ronald Hutton says the stocking tradition is German (p. 116).

Another novelty from this era is the Christmas greeting card. Invented and sent in 1843 by Sir Henry Cole. It was traditional since Roman times to send letters to friends on New Year. Cole simply had the bright idea of having most of the letter printed out, with a lovely photo, to make the process easier. The earliest were not Christmas related, but New Year. They became Christmas related a few decades later.

Prince Albert's Christmas Tree

Another novelty from this era is the most recognizable tradition of Christmas - the Christmas Tree. Hey! Didn't we already talk about the tree? Yes! It started in the 1500s, but it didn't get popular until now. You could find Christmas Trees in many places around the world by this time, but mostly just in German immigrant homes. It did not become truly fashionable until Queen Victoria of England married Prince Albert of Germany. Ronald Hutton lists Albert as one of his saviors of Christmas. Albert brought the Christmas Tree tradition with him to England, setting one up in Windsor Castle in 1848. Paintings of the royal children standing in front of a perfectly magical tree, gripped with awe at the lights and bangles that hung from it and the toys beneath, while the loving Queen and Prince looked on with beaming pride, captured the world's heart. From there it caught on first with the wealthy, then the middle class, then by the 1950s, almost everyone had one.

Here I pause to mention Alexander Hislop, author of the book "The Two Babylons", anti-Catholic bigot, and source of all Nimrod claims. He was a member of the Church of Scotland, still hanging on to its anti-Catholic (and therefore anti-Christmas) stance since the 1550s. If anyone reading this has encountered Hislop or his distortions, do yourself a huge favor and read Ralph Woodrow's book "The Babylon Connection". You'll thank yourself. Moving on.....

Thomas Nast Santa

Back yet again to Santa Claus. The image changed again in 1862 when Thomas Nast (creator of the Republican Elephant and Democrat Mule) popularized Santa in red fur. This would not be the first time Santa was in red, but it was the most popular to date. Santa rarely appeared in other colors after this.

Civil War Star-Spangled Santa

Santa's home at the North Pole was also introduced at this time as a slight to the Confederate South. Until then, Saint Nicholas was often depicted as living in New Jerusalem or some other Heavenly estate.

Santa faced an existential crisis at this point since even the stove pipes would be replaced by radiators and duct heating. Santa was on the decline.

In the 1870s, governments start to concede to the popular demand for the Christmas. Bank holidays were established. Christmas become a bank holiday in Scotland in 1871. Slowly, Scotland moves back toward Christmas.

In 1872, Wilhelm Fuchtner, "The Father of the Nutcracker", started producing nutcrackers in assembly-line fashion. The family of carpenters would make toys in the winter for extra money and realized nutcrackers were a good choice for income and self-expression. The design was intended to convey a purpose. Soldiers were ornate yet expressionless to depict the harshness of life. Nutcrackers that looked like officials were intended to mock the ruling class.

Ronald Hutton mentions it was in the 1880s when greenery began to die off. No doubt the Christmas Tree played a large part. Only fir, holly, and mistletoe remained (p. 120). Artificial materials began to take over.

According to the article "History of Electric Christmas Tree Lights" on ThoughtCo:

"In 1882, an employee of Edison put on a show with electric lights that was fully intended to establish the practical application of electricity to the celebration of Christmas. Edward H. Johnson, a close friend of Edison and the president of the company Edison formed to provide illumination in New York City, used electric lights for the first time to illuminate a Christmas tree."

In 1879, Frank Woolworth pioneered the "five and dime" bargain store. When the song "It's Beginning To Look A Lot Like Christmas" (Bing Crosby, 1951) says, "take a look at the five and ten," it is likely referring to a Woolworth.

Woolworth practically invented the cheap toy. Until this point, lower-class families were too poor to afford gifts for Christmas. Hand-crafted toys were expensive. But with Woolworth's cheap mass-produced toys, practically anyone could have something. Afterward, Christmas would be geared almost entirely for children. At Woolworth, toys would be displayed only at certain times of the year out of respect for poor families. Thus, the Christmas-time toy display became popular.
Woolworth was also the first to produce manufactured Christmas Tree ornaments, in 1880.
Woolworth was also the store that popularized Christmas villages. The Christmas village started in the Czech Republic as elaborate Nativity scenes. (As a humorous aside, the word "putz", meaning 'to put up', comes from putting up these villages.) Woolworths imported cardboard villages from Germany to America and used them in Christmas displays. Ceramic villages came later.
In 1900, Joshua Lionel Cohen put a battery-powered electric motor onto a toy train so it could move on its own. He intended it to be in Woolworth's window displays, drawing attention to other merchandise. People began buying the toy trains. Thus, the Christmas Village, Lionel trains, and trains under the Christmas tree are all interrelated, and all go back to Woolworth.

In 1889, President Benjamin Harrison was the first to have a Christmas Tree in the White House. In 1894, President Grover Cleveland is credited with being the first to use electric lights on a privately-owned Christmas Tree.

In 1890, the first department store Santa arrives. Ironically, James Edgar, the man in the costume, was born in Scotland and moved to Boston - both locations were Puritan ground zero.

Tchaikovsky wrote his famous "The Nutcracker" ballet in 1892, based on Ernst Hoffman's "The Nutcracker and The Mouse King". Because of the Christmas timing in the ballet, nutcrackers became associated with Christmas.

"The Santa Claus" 1898

The first Christmas motion picture appeared in 1898. The 90-second film "Santa Claus", directed by George Albert Smith, has the honor. Christmas movies would become a mainstay of the season in the next century.

It was in this first decade of the 1900s when the last holdouts of gift-giving on New Year surrendered to the trend of gift-giving on Christmas Day. Ronald Hutton mentions Queen Victoria was still sending gifts at New Year in 1900 (p. 116). But that was its last gasp.

In 1908, the first printed Advent Calendar was made.

Some grand old songs come from this era - "Twelve Days of Christmas (1780), "The First Noel" (1823), "The Holly and The Ivy" (1823), "It Came Upon A Midnight Clear" (1849), "O Come, O Come O Come Emanual" (1251, but rewritten in 1851), "Good King Wenceslas" (1853), and "O Little Town of Bethlehem" (1868) from England, and "Deck the Halls" (1862) with music from Wales and lyrics by a Scott, and "O Holy Night" (1847) from France, and "Silent Night" (1818) from Germany.

I am putting the end of this era in 1915, due to the end of the Second Industrial Revolution. Note the complete lack of pagan origins in anything new during this era. We leave this era with Christmas on a serious upswing, enjoying popularity it hadn't seen in many places since Henry VIII. It is a secular event now, though, and getting more secular as we go. The day is clearly geared toward children now. Christmas, which was not very popular in America at the start of this era, is widely accepted. Traditions from around Europe have come together in the melting pot to be reinvented and sent back out.

The next step in history is the modern era. Christmas meets Madison Avenue and Hollywood, and becomes what it is today.

MODERN (1915 to Present)

The modern era is the time starting near the end of the Second Industrial Revolution, to the present (as you read this, right now). During this period, we see a great resurgence in Christmas, a solid focus on children, an expansion of the gift-giving traditions, the advent of television, a further widening and strengthening of secular traditions, and an identity crisis.

You live in this era. What is Christmas in this era to you? I bet there are as many answers to that as there are people. I think a common theme would be family, friends, and memories. I bet that would be a common theme from even the earliest years. The more things change, the more they stay the same. But a religious day stripped of its religion is a day without a set purpose. Christmas is searching for a reason to exist. Seems to me that reason is sentiment, children, and romance. I suppose it isn't beyond reason to speculate Christmas will one day absorb Valentine's Day.

One of the most well-known innovations of this era came to us in 1931. That was the fateful year Coca Cola hired Haddon Sunblom, creator of the Quaker Oats Man, to illustrate Santa Claus. His creation, a softer and simpler take on Thomas Nast's design, is the modern evolution of Santa Claus. The tradition of Santa exploded afterward. It was from here forward that Santa Claus begins to successfully absorb all other gift bringer characters. The only one to avoid this trend is the Christkindl, because it is particularly different, but that doesn't mean it was unscathed. Santa usually appears with the Christkindl, and has even taken a name from it, "Chris Kringle". Santa is now the single most recognizable Christmas character in the world. Some think Coca Cola invented Santa. No, they did not. But they might as well have.
Fun fact: Haddon Sundblom later gave Santa an elf helper, named Sprite Boy. This is why their lemon-lime soda is named Sprite. 

There is no way to know if this will be the final evolution of Santa. Given the way everything seems to change, I feel it would be naive to think it will be. Recently, there has been a push towards a younger, slimmer Santa. I also find it telling Coca Cola has almost abandoned Santa for polar bears in their holidays ads.

In 1934, Herbert W Armstrong prophesizes Jesus' return by 1936. I know, this factoid has nothing to do with Christmas. I just couldn't resist adding it.

And in 1939, the shiny, new Santa gets his shiny, new buddy, Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer, when Robert L. Ray writes a children's book featuring this character.

In the 1930s and 40s, the Nazi regime under the direction of Adolph Hitler began a campaign of secularization. Their intent was to set the party up as the quasi-religious center of the Reich. Christmas was forever altered by their efforts. Martha goes into great detail in her fascinating article, "Falsely Accused? Nazi Propaganda Lives On".

In the late 1820s, Joel Roberts Poinsett brought a new flower to America from Mexico. In the 1920s, the Ecke family of Southern California sold it as a potted plant. Paul Ecke Jr. took over the family business in 1963 and turned (you guessed it) the Poinsettia into the most popular potted plant in America.

And now for arguably the most influential new Christmas tradition of this era - the Christmas television special. The very first was "Mr. Magoo's Christmas Carol." It aired on NBC on December 18, 1962. It was a hit, and all the other Christmas specials you've seen owe it a debt of thanks. It was not the first television show with a Christmas-related plot, but it was the first special. Oddly enough, it was televised Christmas that gets the most credit for bringing Scotland fully back into the Christmas fold after four long centuries of avoiding it. The warmth of televised Christmas thawed their northern hearts more than Innis & Gunn ever could.

In 1957, Dr. Suess published "How The Grinch Stole Christmas!" I just saw an entire isle of Grinch-related merch at Hobby Lobby.

In the mid-1960s, multi-national corporations realized they could pump out cheap products by using Asian labor and television marketing. The era of commercials aimed directly at children went into full swing. Whole television shows were created just to market toys. Saturday morning became synonymous with cartoons. Woolworths, the heavyweight champion of cheap toys, could not compete.
It is a strange thing that even from the early 1800s it was said that merchandizers were at the heart of what is wrong with Christmas. The Industrialist blamed them for keeping it alive rather than allowing people to just go to work. Yet it really wasn't exactly true ...until here.

There are so many more traditions and highlights to talk about, it would take much too long to go over them all -- snow globes, Currier and Ives, aluminum trees, Bing Crosby, "White Christmas", The Chipmunks, the Norelco Santa commercial, flash mobs, ugly sweaters, "Grandma Got Run Over By A Reindeer", people getting trampled at Black Friday sales, the Star Wars Christmas Special, "A Christmas Story" with Ralphie almost shooting his eye out, Hans Gruber falling off the Nakatomi tower, Mariah Carey, Elf on a Shelf, music-synchronized Christmas lights displays, Dwight Schrute dressed up as Belsnickel, Holiday Baking Championship ... the list is endless.

What can I say about this Modern era? Clearly, our Christmas started in the previous. Christmas was gutted and reinvented.      Christmas - circa 1800.

CONCLUSION

Thus ends our eras tour. There you have it! We've reviewed Christmas from start to finish. Not quite as pagan as advertised!

I offer you my thoughts on the past and the future. I think we can summarize the entire history, and therefore the future, of Christmas up in this: Christmas reflects who we are.

So far as the past goes, I think the story of Christmas is one of romanticizing a past. Long past? No, your past. What we think of as "how Christmas used to be" is really only how it used to be when we were very young. But at most 100 years ago or so. What Christmas genuinely used to be is long, long ago and far, far away. And I think if we went back to it, most people would not like it.

What do I expect to come in the next era (the future)? I think the pendulum does swing!

So far as the future goes, I think we can learn from the past. Christmas is a mirror reflecting who we are. We have seen that Christmas has changed as cultures change. It will continue. If Christmas is not as sacred as some would prefer, perhaps the issue is that we are less than sacred than we should be. Change what you can control - yourself. Clearly, if we've learned one thing at all, it's that trying to wipe out Christmas doesn't work. A heavy-handed approach just makes things worse.

I want to make one comment about commercialization of Christmas. It is rather obnoxious, I will freely admit. But while we pine for days long gone, don't forget the blessings of the present moment. Until recently, the common family was too poor to afford very much. Which would you rather have - obnoxious advertisements and traffic, or high infant mortality? Our modern world is not all bad. What kind of a world do we live in where we sit our overweight rumps on a couch, with central heating and a flat-screen television, eating cookies, and complaining there is too much Christmas? (Oh God! To hear the insect on the leaf pronouncing there is too much life and wishing to be among his hungry brothers in the dust.) I think we all should take a small step back and consider the whole equation, and we should consider our own personal role in these conditions.

When I say Christmas reflects who we are, I suppose that betrays the need to define Christmas. Is it the traditions? Is it the spirit? Is it the memories? Is it the past? It just so happens while I was writing this, the Charlie Brown Christmas Special came on. I find I still agree with Linus. This is the meaning of Christmas:

(LUK. 2: 8-14) 8 Now there were in the same country shepherds living out in the fields, keeping watch over their flock by night. 9 And behold, an angel of the Lord stood before them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were greatly afraid. 10 Then the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid, for behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy which will be to all people. 11 For there is born to you this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. 12 And this will be the sign to you: You will find a Babe wrapped in swaddling cloths, lying in a manger.” 13 And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying: 14 “Glory to God in the highest, And on earth peace, goodwill toward men!”

One final mention of the "Christmas is pagan" narrative. Is Christmas pagan? No! I think this series on the history of Christmas shows as much.
There are many Herbert Armstrongs and Alexander Hislops out in the world, railing against Christmas and claiming everything goes back to ancient paganism. Their claims were little other than manipulations, calculated half-truths, and outright lies. I can strongly attest that there is a disturbingly high amount of misinformation about history in general, and Christmas in particular, floating around in books and on the internet. It isn't all from amateurs, either. Take for instance James Frazer's "Golden Bough". People selectively spread speculation, theories, and abandoned information as fact. We have pagans trying to reclaim something that was never theirs. We have fundamentalist Protestants desperately trying to give Christmas to the pagans. And then we have various groups of people (including yours truly) trying to find the genuine path we all took through time to get here, but most of our information goes unread. The average person just wanting a little information faces a figurative field of land mines. Manipulations, calculated half-truths, and outright lies abound.

Did Christmas once have some traditional elements taken from paganism? Yes. But Christmas has been gutted and reinvented new. Gift-giving, Christmas Cards, and greenery swags are about the only things left. Yet those did not start as pagan religious traditions, they were secular, and ubiquitous across all humanity. Everyone who can decorates throughout the year, gives gifts, and writes. There is nothing at all wrong about that. We could accuse almost everything else in our lives of this same "paganism", including what we do in our public and private worship practices. I do not believe in "once pagan, always pagan" at all any longer. It is unbiblical. It is unworkable. It relies on gross mischaracterizations of history and reality. That should be a dead giveaway of its quality. If you have to distort history to invent accusations, and ignore far more than you include, then truth is not as much on your side as you believe. If the modern Puritans who fret over paganism hiding under every bed and every rock really understood the magnitude of the standard they have set for themselves, and genuinely tried to live by their own standard, they would be unable to function. By their standard, shoes are pagan! It is a self-defeating system. It makes even God Himself into a pagan, it rips away His authority and power to redeem, and it ignores what repeatedly happens in the very Bible these ones claim to be defending. It is the diametric opposite of the Christmas message. It is a self-serving and self-righteous way. Its true intent and use is to elevate the self by putting others down. (Don't believe me? Give them some verified factual information and just see how quickly they ignore it and attack you.) If you have to put others down in order to elevate yourself, then God is not as much on your side as you believe. I reject it entirely. I suggest you, dear fair-minded reader, do the same.

We have MANY other articles that dive into "once pagan, always pagan" if you are interested in more.

I hope you've enjoyed our walk through the eras of Christmas. I did! I believe this was my favorite - and by far most involved - research project I've ever done. I pray God uses it to bless your life, and you use it to bless others.
Ugh! Now I have to start updating the Christmas FAQ. Lol

MERRY CHRISTMAS, EVERYONE!

************

It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )

Acts 17:11

************

Christmas Eras Tour - Part III

Welcome back again! We are going on a tour of the seven eras of the history of Christmas.

As a reminder -
I have been reading "Stations of the Sun" by Ronald Hutton. One thing I noticed while reading is that Christmas went through stages. I see at least 7 eras in the past 2,000 years. Each one is marked by its own characteristics which were either greatly changed or outright abandoned in the following era. I thought it might be worthwhile to take us on a tour of those eras. Since this post pulls mainly from Hutton, and Hutton focuses mainly on England where Christmas is concerned, this post will, too.

In the previous post in this series, we reviewed era 3 (Catholic). In that era, we reviewed the years 567 to 1517, the golden years of Christmas. It was a time of fun and community. Today, we will tour eras 4 (Oppression) and 5 (Restoration).

As the names imply, today's content will be less festive. We are less interested in the traditions in this era (good thing there weren't many new) and more interested in the politics. I want to tell the story of how Christmas flatlined on the table, but was resuscitated.

Enjoy! But not too much or you'll be fined 5 shillings.

REFORMATION AND OPPRESSION (1517 to 1661 AD)

The Reformation and Oppression era is the time starting in 1517 when Martin Luther sparked the Protestant Reformation by nailing his 95 theses to the door of Wittenberg Church, through the Commonwealth period in Great Britain, to the start of the Industrial Revolution. During this era, Christmas gets banned in the British Isles and America, traditions get altered, then Christmas makes a comeback. Sort of.

It isn't all of Protestantism that caused this era to be named "Oppression", just a few denominations. The three big players in today's post are the Anglicans, Presbyterians, and especially the Puritans.

How Christmas went for you in these years depended almost entirely on where you lived. During this period we see the Scottish banning it, followed by the American Pilgrims banning it, then the English under Oliver Cromwell banning it. However, at the same time, Christmas changed in Germania and Scandinavia, but not to the degree it did in England. They had no fundamentalist Puritan movement. And it changed almost not at all in Catholic areas such as France, Italy, and Spain. But these are broad strokes. No country was all Protestant or all Catholic. They were mixed.

As mentioned in the previous posts, there were two big gift-giving days: the feast of St. Nicholas, and New Year. After Martin Luther sparked the Reformation, he discouraged the veneration of saints. Henry VIII would do the same later on. This means, for Protestants anyway, Saint Nicholas could no longer bring gifts to children on December 6. Luther moved traditions from Saint Nicholas' Day to Christmas Eve (aka Heiligabend, holy evening). He also adapted an older German tradition into a new gift bringer to replace Saint Nicholas: the Christkindl (the Christ Child). This opened the way for gift giving on Christmas Eve where it had not been before, and new Christmas gift-bearing characters to emerge later.

To complicate matters further, just because a tradition was discouraged does not mean it went away. One example is ... Saint Nicholas. He was so beloved he was never really replaced. Neither were the traditions on December 6th. Traditions were never fully moved to Christmas Eve. It was more like they were copied and pasted. Saint Nicholas is in both places. And since St. Nick is in both, his companions are, too. Krampus et al get associated with Christmas Eve around this time.

Meanwhile, in the early 1500s in Germany, the Christmas Tree tradition is gaining popularity as the actors guilds keep setting them up in public. No, Martin Luther did not invent them. It is popularly claimed he invented putting candles on them, to add the light Jesus brings to the tradition. Many trees since have burned accidentally. The Germans would take the tree tradition wherever they went.
At the same time, the Paradise Plays which gave rise to the tree tradition, were dying out. Again quoting Martha from her post "Falsely Accused? Christmas Trees Were Christian Theater Props":

"Most plays died out in the 1500s, despite the fact that they were still very popular. In London, they blamed it on the rise of Shakespeare and similar theater. Elsewhere in Europe, it's more obvious that the Reformation was their death knell. Early on, scripts were revised to eliminate Catholic themes. As time went on, the Church called in scripts for editing and held until it was too late in the year to perform them (perhaps until hours of sunlight and air temperatures were prohibitive), Rhys writes (p. 24). Protestants weren't the only ones to discourage the plays – in France, the  Catholic-leaning Parlement de Paris outlawed the plays in 1548."

Oh, by the way - 'tannenbaum' is technically not how you say Christmas Tree in German. A tannenbaum is any fir tree. A Weihnachtsbaum is a Christmas Tree. The song "O Tannenbaum" is not technically a Christmas song, and never mentions Christmas, but it has since become a Christmas song. It was written in the 1800s, but is based off an older song from this era.

At this point, I am going to walk you through a series of political events in the British Isles that led from the golden age of happy Christmas to the total suppression of the day. I am not going to go into much detail, because this post is about Christmas. But there are things I feel are important to what I said in the first post in this series: "I am particularly interested in showing how our modern Christmas is mostly a product of the three eras before it (ie. 7 is caused by 4, 5, & 6)."

English Monarchy

King Henry VIII created the Church of England in 1534. This one event started a slow chain reaction that contributed greatly to the English Civil Wars and the outlawing of Christmas. Protestantism was now on the rise in many areas of northern Europe, and Christmas in particular would bear the brunt. Henry VIII wanting a divorce is just as much a cause of Christmas as we see it today as is anything else. Law of unintended consequences.
Henry VIII also discouraged veneration of saints. This is where the Twelve Days start to dry up and Christmas Day starts to become the singular big winter festival. We talked in the last era about how this would happen. But nothing drastic happened quite yet.

In 1553, Henry's daughter, "Bloody" Mary I, a Catholic, became queen. Mary violently wrenched England back to Catholicism. Every movement towards Protestantism done by her predecessors was undone. By force. Many Protestants fled England for the mainland where, as fate would have it, they encountered John Calvin.

Five years later, Mary was succeeded by her sister Elizabeth I, a Protestant. All that Mary did was now undone once again. By force. A pendulum does swing! This is the period of priest holes, Mass performed in attics, and songs to help people remember the Catechism while it was banned. Elizabeth escapes the name "Bloody" only because she won. As Catholics began fleeing England for Catholic nations on the mainland, the Protestants who fled earlier began to return ...with their new Calvinist ideas. Here began the Puritan movement - a name given to a group of fundamentalist Calvinist Presbyterians who wanted increasingly radical reforms in England and its Church.

Catholic symbols and traditions were removed, often violently. Here began the polemics - calling anything Catholic "Popery", all Catholics "Papists", and quite intentionally calling Christmas "Yule" in order to sully it as much as possible with a pagan association. The people who try to find the source of Christmas in Yule because some people call it Yule seem to forget that Christmas was once purposefully called Yule in order to sully it. The antagonistic comments grew over the years to a ridiculous height, as they often do. Everything was 'heathen' and belonged directly to the devil. According to Alison Weir in "A Tudor Christmas", plum pudding was called "the broth of abominable things" in reference to Isaiah 65: 4 (p. 161).

It is important that you understand the attacks against Christmas were not because they had proof of anything pagan, but because they saw Christmas as Catholic.
I suppose only a few stopped to remember how they all used to be Catholic, too.

The Protestant reforms in England moved into Scotland, mainly under the leadership of John Knox (unsurprisingly, a student of John Calvin), where they would be taken in the full Scottish spirit. In 1560, Elizabeth put Protestants into power in Scotland. They established the Church of Scotland (aka. "the Kirk") - which is not the same denomination as the Church of England and is not run by the Scottish monarch. It worked on a Presbyterian model, which means it is led by Elders chosen from the lay members, as opposed to the Anglican church's Episcopalian model, which means it is led by formal Bishops similar to the Catholic Church. This is the dream Puritans had for the Church of England. By 1566, barely more than five years later, Christmas was no longer among the feasts of the Church in Scotland. But it wasn't just Christmas. All of the major holidays were out.
Fun fact: It is this church that will eventually spawn one Alexander Hislop. Now you understand his motives a little better.

Elizabeth I was succeeded in 1603, and the royal houses of England and Scotland were united, by James I (England and Ireland), also titled James VI (Scotland), famous for ordering the creation of the King James Version of the Bible. James disappointed both the Scottish and English reformers by not being as reform-minded as they wished. James I actually enjoyed Christmas!

Here, we get a huge development in tradition.

Some nobles had begun wintering in London rather than remaining at their mansions and keeping an open house for the poor, as they had been expected to. In 1616, King James tried to reverse the trend. According to Hutton, this act helped inspire one Ben Johnson to write a masque (p. 19). We talked about masques in the last era. They are a type of an elaborate play which grew out of the mumming tradition. Mr. Johson's masque was called "Christmas, His Masque". In it, Christmas was personified as a joyous, silly figure wearing a hat, and a beard. Some lines in the masque were anti-Puritan. This Christmas figure returned several more times with various appearances over the next few decades. We will keep checking in on this figure as he evolves.
There are some slight digs against the Puritans in this masque. You can find the same in Shakespeare's works.

In 1620, some Puritans, fed up the reformation of England wasn't moving quickly or far enough for their liking, leave England to start a Calvinist utopia in the New World. Their aversion for Christmas is legendary. Things were going their way, but not perfectly, so they left for a wilderness thousands of miles away. This should give you an idea about their general attitude.

King James could not directly order the Kirk to do anything. So, in 1621, he arranged for them to enact "The Five Articles of Perth". The fifth article bound the Kirk to observe Christmas, Good Friday, Easter, Ascension, and Pentecost. After 60 years, Christmas was restored in Scotland and looked to be safe once again!

...But the Kirk didn't appreciate this and worked to undo it. They are still a little salty about it to this day. The Five Rules were repealed 17 years later. This new ban would last until 1712. But merely lifting the ban did not return Christmas to that land. That would take longer still.

Yule Log

In the 1620-30s, a man named Robert Herrick first used the term "Christmas Log." You may know it better as the Yule Log. Remember, the names Christmas and Yule were interchangeable at this time, and did not actually refer to Yule. This is the earliest definite mention of the Yule Log tradition. Here. In this decade. Far later than most people would have us believe.
My question is - if this tradition is genuinely from 1184, which we talked about in the last era, why the 500-year gap without any other mention?
In this period, the Yule Log was gigantic! It took a team of young men and often a horse to draw out of the woods.

King James was succeeded in 1625 by Charles I. Charles, although he was a Protestant, was no friend of the Puritans. They were no fan of his, either. Charles married a Catholic woman, and appreciated older traditions. This bothered the Puritans. The Puritans wanted the King out of church leadership, and the Bishops, too. This bothered Charles. He saw a threat to the Divine Right of Kings, so he worked against them. Thousands of Puritans left for the New World. After years of tensions, most of which centered around particulars of religion and who has authority in the church, wars broke out. From 1639 to 1653, multiple wars engulfed England, Scotland, and Ireland. The Wars of the Three Kingdoms.

The Commonwealth

In November 1644, The Church of England ruled that no other day but Sunday was biblical. The official liturgy in 1645 had no mention of Christmas, making its removal legal. Just like Scotland and the Puritan colony in America, Christmas was now out in England.
This doesn't mean Christmas was illegal, just that it wasn't being celebrated in churches. People kept it in their homes, and there was a secular, public observance in general.

As with most everything else in this era, there were unintended consequences. Christmas traditions were secularized. Anyone who studies Christmas soon runs into claims about midwinter festivals throughout history. The middle of winter, stripped of sacred Christmas symbolism, became just like any other excuse to drink and cause trouble. Where once we had holly and ivy symbolizing Jesus, we now have any plant that was green at the time - ivy, holly, box, yew, rosemary, laurel, broom, etc - and mistletoe - symbolizing nothing in particular. Hogneling and souling door-to-door to raise money for the church were replaced by groups of people collecting money for various efforts, sometimes by force. Christmas was alive, but the spirit of Christmas was not. I don't mean to minimize our modern complaints, but perhaps a little thankfulness our Christmas is not like that of the early-1600s is warranted.

Charles I was executed on orders of Parliament in January 1649. His son, Charles II, was crowned in Scotland, but that ended badly for him, so he fled to France. The Monarchy was ended, replaced by the fundamentalist Puritan government known as the Commonwealth of England. And with the monarchy technically went the Nobility. Here, the nobility exit center stage in the culture.

Oliver Cromwell, a Puritan, ruled England, Wales, Ireland, and Scotland as Lord Protector from 1653 to 1658. The Puritans could not abide the continued existence of that Papist Christmas. Cromwell did not personally ban Christmas, but he oversaw the government that did. In 1647, an act of Parliament banned Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost. Out were their traditions - to the slightest act - and even festive attitudes were punishable offenses. In ten years, Christmas went from religious to secular and now to illegal. The 1650s under Cromwell was the decade without a Christmas. Sort of.

There was resistance to this heavy-handedness. Not everyone appreciated their traditions being banned. There were riots and protests large and small. Some hung mistletoe as an act of defiance. Parliament complained their authority was simply being ignored. They, of course, reacted with even more heavy-handedness.

Father Christmas

One particularly noteworthy result of this resistance is ... Father Christmas. A personification of Christmas, like "Christmas, His Masque" thirty-six years earlier, Father Christmas appears in several propaganda pieces in the 1650s. I will give you the two most well known.
The first is "The Vindication of Christmas", in 1653, by John Thomas. Thomas was known for writing Christmas-related works. In Vindication, Christmas is a symbol of good cheer. How can you be against good cheer? Even though this character is clearly a personification of Christmas, the name "Father Christmas" is not used.
The second is "The Examination and Trial of Old Father Christmas", in 1658. Here, the name Father Christmas appears for the first time. In the illustration, Father Christmas is quite saintly, and not at all fun or silly. Note the fur-lined robe and hat. Some people say Santa comes from Odin because of this. As you can clearly see for yourself, this is not the case. (People claiming everything comes from Odin gets tiresome.) This is the general look Father Christmas will keep in England until the 1900s. (Note: The book "There Really Is A Santa Claus" by William Federer, says Father Christmas was created by Henry VIII. Upon deeper inspection, I find no evidence for this.)

It is important to understand Father Christmas is technically not Santa Claus. There are some major differences:

• He is the personification of Christmas itself; representing the day, its characteristics, and traditions.
• He is the direct descendant of masques.
• He is a pro-Christmas propaganda piece created in England.
• He is not based on Saint Nicholas legends.
• He is not a gift-bringer.

English Monarchy ...Again

This whole time, Charles II was hiding in France. Oliver Cromwell died in 1658, succeeded by his son, who resigned nine months later. In 1660, after a brief period of in-fighting, Charles II was invited back to England to reign as King of England, Ireland, and Scotland. Parliament declared he had been King since his father's death. (Remember when I mentioned he was coronated in Scotland before he fled?) Thus ended the Commonwealth. A pendulum does swing!

In England, all laws were invalidated going back to 1642. In Scotland, all legislation since 1637 was revoked. This reactivated the Five Articles of Perth. The era of the Commonwealth was simply erased as if it had never been. And Christmas was back, baby!

Sort of.

I focused almost exclusively on England so far. It was necessary, since what happened in England affected everyone else but mostly America. I will not go into detail on what was happening outside of England, but in the Catholic nations, such as Italy, France, and Spain, things moved on about the same as they always had. In Germany and Scandinavian areas, the Reformation created new traditions but the extremes of John Calvin's students were contained, which allowed these areas to retain much more of their original Catholic flavor. This comes into play when migrants from these areas eventually make their way to America. I refer primarily to the Dutch and New Amsterdam.

There is one tradition outside of England that we can't ignore: leaving shoes out on the eve of Saint Nicholas' Day. This tradition is important because it will later evolve into hanging stockings by the fireplace.
It is possible this tradition started in this era. I am saying possible because the actual history of this tradition is very difficult to locate. Even though many people write about it almost no one gives historical sources, not even Hutton. So, it could be from the previous era. All I can say for certain about the age is it must long predate the poem "A Visit From Saint Nicholas" by Clement Clarke Moore in 1823. It does seem to be Scandinavian; Dutch in particular. Certainly, the claims about children leaving shoes out for Odin's horse were invented recently, just like the story of Frigg and mistletoe and Santa and Odin. There is no medieval historical evidence for this claim whatsoever, nor does the tradition make any sense within the mythology of Odin.

I am putting the end of this era in 1660, due to the restoration of the Monarchy in England and the undoing of the years of Commonwealth. Christmas was legally back after its long, dark night of the soul. A pendulum does swing!

It must be understood that many of the things modern people take for granted about modern Christmas and feel were always part of Christmas were actually a result of the changes that began in this period. Christmas before this period was not like Christmas afterward. Sure, it was on the same day and remembers the same event, and even has many of the same traditions, but Christmas had been gutted and would be reinvented. This will not be the end of it. Christmas has hurdles to face in the next eras.

The next step in history is the restoration of Christmas when the Protestants who once oppressed it suddenly found a nostalgic streak within themselves and became comfortable with the day.

RESTORATION (1661 to 1760 AD)

The Restoration era is the time when Protestants stopped banning Christmas and finally became comfortable it. Sort of. During this period, Christmas became more family-centered, old traditions began to be replaced by new regional traditions, and everything was mashed together as it migrated into the "great American melting pot".

Charles II did not end England's issues. He merely improved them. Efforts to ban Christmas would continue for some time, especially in Scotland. Certain Protestants were unhappy with the erasure of decades of what they saw as advances. Christmas would be removed as an official holiday again in Scotland by the end of the 1690s, not to fully return for almost 250 years. Wondering why you see so many German, English, and even Irish Christmas traditions but not many Scottish? That's why. In Scotland, the New Year would be their main focus at this time of year. "Ald Lang Sein" is Scottish. How ironic they were trying to remove what they saw as Catholic paganism, which was a false accusation, only to retain a legitimately ancient Roman custom.

I will return again to Ronald Hutton's brilliant observation, to continue his thoughts from the Catholic era:

"The church produced its own institutional rituals during this whole span of time, often overlapping or blending with the others. These were greatly diminished after the Reformation, and from the seventeenth century the festive role of the parish and great household was also much reduced. Instead the principal unit of celebration became the local community, much less formally defined and growing ever more complex with time."
-Ronald Hutton, "Stations of the Sun", p.426

What Hutton is saying is, during this period, the center of Christmas migrated away from communal worship at the church building and out into the towns and especially individual homes. The community and the home are the center of society, and thus the focus of traditions. More and more, children became the heart of the day, especially for the upper and middle classes who could afford it.

The decentralized and more individualist nature of Protestantism affected their general manner. Catholics tended to have the church at the center of everything, but Protestants much less so. Even Christmas Carols moved into the home. Hutton mentions several Christmas Carols were written specifically to be sung in homes at time time (p. 21).
This is precisely what Martha noticed in her study on the development of Christmas Trees in Germany. Protestants in Germany were taking their new love for the tree tradition home with them. (for more, read "Falsely Accused? Christmas Trees Were Christian Theater Props").

Again, we see Christmas reflecting the culture of the time.

Before the suppression, Christmastide was spread out across the Twelve Days onto various Saint's feast days. Now, with the abandonment of the veneration of saints, all of those traditions are contracting into one grand Christmas Day. I mentioned in the last post this would happen. It will happen much more in the next era.

Christmas Day in general started with a church service, then comes the celebrating. People would give to charity, enjoy a party, eat, visit family, take in a show, do some caroling ...the usual things many people do today. Those were all things done in eras 3 and 4, but in a changed way.

There were exceptions. The tradition of giving servants the day after Christmas off and providing them with some gifts remained. The feast of St. Stephen became reimagined into Boxing Day in the 1740s. The tradition of gift-giving remained at New Year.

A strong opposition to Christmas and anything Catholic emigrated to America. You no doubt heard how the Pilgrims in the New World banned Christmas. You could be fined for having a too festive a spirit on Christmas. But there were plenty of other immigrants in the New World besides the Pilgrims. Christmas in America was a very patchy, local thing. What you got depended on what community you were from. You must abandon the modern idea of one country - there were 13 quite distinct colonies at this time. Most importantly to Christmas were the Dutch in New York. The Dutch, although Protestant, were from that section of Europe near Germany that never rejected Christmas. They loved it! And they loved Saint Nicholas. How do you turn around the bleak days of the Oppression era? The Dutch, that's how. It was the Dutch who brought a wondrous old Christmas to the New World.

An important development in this era is mistletoe. Due to the suppression of Christmas during the previous era, the popular choices in greenery expanded. When the suppression ceased, we see the English mistletoe traditions expand through Europe. It was particularly attractive around Christmas time since that is when it berries out. This is the time period when we start seeing mistletoe used specifically as a Christmas decoration rather than only a medicinal herb. Blend that with a general repression of sexuality, and you will get the next development in the mistletoe tradition.

Another novelty from this era, and my personal favorite of all, is the nutcracker. Nutcrackers had been around for centuries, but by the mid-1700s they finally take the form we know today. The soldiers are meant to look like those of the Napoleonic era.

Now come the days of the great Johann Sebastian Bach. Some grand old songs were written in this period - "Joy To The World" (written in 1719 but later put to music from 1848), "Hark the Herald Angels Sing" (1739-54), and "Adeste Fidelis" (1751, my personal favorite).

I am putting the end of this era in 1760, due to the Industrial Revolution. I would have put this date even later, allowing for the spread of industrialization, but I decided at the start this post would be primarily based on Hutton, so 1760 it is.

The next step in history is the Industrial Revolution. A fantastic time for business owners who had little interest in traditions, but a time of identity crisis for Christmas. This next era is incredibly important to our modern Christmas. Perhaps the most important. The day survived a religious suppression and resuscitation only to face a secular suppression and reinvention. A pendulum does swing!

See you next time for Part IV!

************

It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )

Acts 17:11

************