As soon as the Halloween pumpkin and witch decorations come down at our local grocery store, Thanksgiving turkeys get a quick representation and then the Christmas decorations explode on the scene – blow up Santas, reindeer and other holiday paraphernalia. One day in the near future I expect the commercial sales of decorations for Halloween, Thanksgiving and Christmas to merge into one giant sloppy united assault on our pocket books and our senses. Maybe a giant inflatable jack-o-lantern that can convert to a turkey and then a fat Santa riding a reindeer. Whoever steals this idea of mine and becomes a millionaire – I expect a generous donation when you hit the big time.

The commercialization and conversion of Christmas into an obsessive consumer frenzy is obvious to most of us. Some of our best religious minds have wrestled with the co-opting of the Christmas season decrying the loss of it’s sacred meaning in the 24-hour glow of our American super malls and outlet stores. Even the famed C.S. Lewis – one of the most influential authors of this century (Christian or otherwise) had a few things to say about it.

In his essay ‘What Christmas Means To Me‘ (God in the dock—Essays on Theology and Ethics), C.S. Lewis explained his view that we aren’t just dealing with the co-opting of a sacred holiday but that we are actually celebrated three different holidays all under the banner of the name ‘Christmas’. In this humorous little jab at our collective holiday insanity Mr. Lewis writes:

“Three things go by the name of Christmas. One is a religious festival. This is important and obligatory for Christians; but as it can be of no interest to anyone else, I shall naturally say no more about it here. The second (it has complex historical connections with the first, but we needn’t go into them) is a popular holiday, an occasion for merry-making and hospitality. If it were my business too have a ‘view’ on this, I should say that I much approve of merry-making. But what I approve of much more is everybody minding his own business. I see no reason why I should volunteer views as to how other people should spend their own money in their own leisure among their own friends. It is highly probable that they want my advice on such matters as little as I want theirs. But the third thing called Christmas is unfortunately everyone’s business.

I mean of course the commercial racket. The interchange of presents was a very small ingredient in the older English festivity. Mr. Pickwick took a cod with him to Dingley Dell; the reformed Scrooge ordered a turkey for his clerk; lovers sent love gifts; toys and fruit were given to children. But the idea that not only all friends but even all acquaintances should give one another presents, or at least send one another cards, is quite modern and has been forced upon us by the shopkeepers. Neither of these circumstances is in itself a reason for condemning it. I condemn it on the following grounds.

  1. It gives on the whole much more pain than pleasure. You have only to stay over Christmas with a family who seriously try to ‘keep’ it (in its third, or commercial, aspect) in order to see that the thing is a nightmare. Long before December 25th everyone is worn out — physically worn out by weeks of daily struggle in overcrowded shops, mentally worn out by the effort to remember all the right recipients and to think out suitable gifts for them. They are in no trim for merry-making; much less (if they should want to) to take part in a religious act. They look far more as if there had been a long illness in the house.
  2. Most of it is involuntary. The modern rule is that anyone can force you to give him a present by sending you a quite unprovoked present of his own. It is almost a blackmail. Who has not heard the wail of despair, and indeed of resentment, when, at the last moment, just as everyone hoped that the nuisance was over for one more year, the unwanted gift from Mrs. Busy (whom we hardly remember) flops unwelcomed through the letter-box, and back to the dreadful shops one of us has to go?
  3. Things are given as presents which no mortal ever bought for himself — gaudy and useless gadgets, ‘novelties’ because no one was ever fool enough to make their like before. Have we really no better use for materials and for human skill and time than to spend them on all this rubbish?
  4. The nuisance. for after all, during the racket we still have all our ordinary and necessary shopping to do, and the racket trebles the labour of it. We are told that the whole dreary business must go on because it is good for trade. It is in fact merely one annual symptom of that lunatic condition of our country, and indeed of the world, in which everyone
    lives by persuading everyone else to buy things. I don’t know the way out. But can it really be my duty to buy and receive masses of junk every winter just to help the shopkeepers? If the worst comes to the worst I’d sooner give them money for nothing and write if off as a charity. For nothing? Why, better for nothing than for a nuisance.

So in light of these tongue-in-cheek comments from Mr. Lewis – I invite you to choose a different path this holiday season – one that is less concerned with the obligatory frenzy and more in tune with the ancient prophecies of the Great Creator/King who came and will come again to renew all things.

Stay tuned to the Sustainable Traditions blogazine in the coming weeks as we explore the deeper meaning of the Christmas season.

J. Fowler

J. Fowler is the website editor and co-founder, along with his wife Pamela, of the Sustainable Traditions project. The Fowlers live with their seven children on a farm near the Blue Ridge Mountains of Virginia.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This