Tag: Christmas

Christmas Quiz – part 3

Welcome to the third and last section of the Christmas Quiz I used during a recent church service.

Many have followed the earlier parts of this quiz. In the last few days there have been readers from 20 nations, including the United Arab Emirates, Singapore, Cambodia, Bangladesh, Finland, Laos, Moldova, Venezuela, Vietnam, Japan, Hong Kong, USA and the UK. I am delighted people from all these countries and cultures find something useful here.

If this is your first encounter with the Christmas Quiz, you would enjoy beginning with the first two parts. Here’s where to find them:

Christmas Quiz part 1
Christmas Quiz part 2

As well as the quizzes, you’ll discover how each one has three parts: 1) the quiz; 2) the answers; 3) a personal reflection. The reflections were the challenge I brought to the church congregation, and it would be wrong to omit them here.

Lastly before we start, avid readers of Occasionally Wise may have an advantage for this third quiz, because I wrote about some of the same subjects in Christmas Miscellany (https://occasionallywise.com/2024/12/21/christmas-miscellany/). But, this time, I’ve added a lot of extra information. You’ll enjoy what you read here!

Part 1  Christmas celebrations

Q1  What percentage of people in the UK say they will attend church on Christmas Day?

  1. 6%
  2. 16%
  3. 26%

Q2  Looking back in history, who was most influential in promoting the Christmas tree tradition?

  1. Ancient pagans, such as Druids
  2. Martin Luther, around 1536
  3. Queen Charlotte, German wife of King George III, in the late 1700s and early 1800s
  4. Queen Victoria and her husband Prince Albert, from the 1840s

Q3  In 1848 Cecil Frances Alexander wrote ‘Once in Royal David’s City’ as a children’s hymn. Which of these other hymns did she write?

  1. ‘There is a green hill far away’.
  2.  ‘All things bright and beautiful’. 
  3. ‘Away in a manger’

Q4  In Norway, Sweden, and Denmark, people think little elf-like creatures bring presents on Christmas Eve. What food do children leave out for them to eat – to thank them and help them on their way?

  1. Sausages
  2. Porridge
  3. Cakes

Q5  Mince pies were being enjoyed 800 years ago. Back then what were their main ingredients?

  1. Meat
  2. Dried fruit
  3. Spices

Q6  In the UK, how many mince pies are sold in the run-up to Christmas?

  1. 80,000
  2. 800,000
  3. 800,000,000

Q7  Mince pies have had various shapes over the years. Back in medieval times what shape were they?

  1. Round
  2. Star
  3. Rectangular

Part 2  Answers to Quiz 3 questions

Question 1 asks what percentage of people surveyed in the UK say they will attend church on Christmas Day. Maybe the most important words in the question are “say they will attend”. That tells you the survey was done before Christmas. If the survey had been done after Christmas and asked how many had actually gone to church on Christmas Day, the numbers would surely have been smaller. Intentions do not always lead to actions. True for all of us.

The right answer – from that survey – is 16%. That may not seem many, but 16% is close to 1 in 6 of the population. I live in the UK and I’m sure that 1 in 6 of those who live near me do not attend church on any day, including Christmas Day! Maybe my affluent neighbours in Oxfordshire are sucked into feasting and present-giving/receiving at Christmas.

The survey not only compared planned attendances at church between the USA, UK, and Germany, but also how many intended to go to the pub. Two things may have skewed answers to the pub question. First, maybe other countries are different, but many pubs in the UK do not open on Christmas Day. Second, there is something wonderful about being in church at Christmas but nothing particularly special happens in the pub on Christmas Day. And nipping off to the pub when you’ve got famly duties at home could have serious consequences!

Nevertheless, it’s interesting to note from the survey that in all three countries, church wins over pub. At least that’s what they told the pollsters.

Question 2 asks who was most influential in promoting the Christmas tree tradition. Once again it’s important to think carefully about the wording of the question.

First, let’s take pagans and Druids of ancient times out of the picture. They did gather branches of evergreen trees to ward off evil spirits. Why those branches? Precisely because they were evergreen – they never seemed to die which, they believed, meant those who gathered them would also never die. But pagans are not behind our Christmas tree tradition. They weren’t interested in promoting their traditions, and Christians were never much interested in adopting them.

What about Martin Luther, the reformer of the church in the 1500s? The story goes that he was walking home on a cold, clear winter night, and felt overwhelmed by the remarkable display of  bright stars overhead. He erected an evergreen tree in his home, and fastened lighted candles to its branches, intending to recapture something of the beauty he had seen in the sky outside. The result was Impressive, and Germany did develop an early custom with similar trees, but Luther’s tree did not inspire a world-wide movement.

Now, if the question had asked who first introduced the Christmas tree tradition to Britain, then Queen Charlotte would be a great answer. She grew up in the German duchy of Mecklenburg-Strelitz, where it was customary at Christmas to lay out a single yew branch, to which were attached wax tapers that could be lit. Presents would be placed under the branch.

Queen Charlotte, Benjamin West, 1777. Yale Center for British Art. Public Domain.

Charlotte came to Britain in 1761 to marry King George. She soon established the yew branch tradition in her new home, but that was only for her family with some court members joining them to sing carols. But the tradition got a significant upgrade in 1800 when Queen Charlotte set up a Christmas tree at Queen’s Lodge, Windsor, and that is reckoned to be the first ever Christmas tree in the UK. Charlotte decorated the tree with tinsel, glass, ornaments and fruits, and brought local children in for a party. John Watkins attended the party and later wrote a biography of Queen Charlotte in which he described the branches of the tree from which “hung bunches of sweetmeats, almonds and raisins in papers, fruits and toys, most tastefully arranged; the whole illuminated by small wax candles. After the company had walked round and admired the tree, each child obtained a portion of the sweets it bore, together with a toy, and then all returned home quite delighted.”[1] I am sure they did.

Erecting Christmas trees began to catch on among the nobility, and in some of the colonies. But by far the biggest boost for the tradition came several decades later. Note that the question asked who was most influential in promoting the Christmas tree tradition, and the correct answer is Queen Victoria and her husband Prince Albert.

Victoria and Albert had both enjoyed Christmas trees during their childhood. They married in 1840, and Christmas trees soon appeared around Windsor Castle. Then Prince Albert did something in 1848 which massively spread the tradition. He allowed a front cover painting to appear in The Illustrated London News showing the main tree covered in decorations and surrounded by the Royal Family.[2] Other publications – in the UK and many other countries, especially the United States – reproduced the painting and followed up on the story. The publicity had a massive influence on Christmas customs, and by 1860 almost every well-off family in Britain and Ireland had a Christmas tree in their home. Royal fever had done its work.

Early publication of the first two verses of “Away in a Manger” from the “Christian Cynosure” newspaper of March 2nd 1882. Public Domain

Question 3 asks about hymns possibly written by Cecil Frances Alexander in addition to her famous carol ‘Once in Royal David’s City’. I listed three. When I posed this question to the church congregation, a large number chose a wrong answer: ‘Away in a manger’. Though that carol is hugely popular, its authorship is unknown. The first two verses appeared in various American publications in the 1880s, typically attributing the hymn to Martin Luther. The third verse which begins ‘Be near me, Lord Jesus’ first appeared in 1892 in Gabriel’s Vineyard Songs. But, even without the extra stanza, what was being called “Luther’s Cradle Song” was being sung widely in America. There is no evidence of a version dating from Martin Luther’s time, but attributing the hymn to him probably helped spread its popularity. Luther and his wife Katie had 6 children as well as raising 8 orphaned nieces and nephews. It must have been difficult to lull them all to sleep, but it wasn’t done by singing ‘Away in a Manger’.

Cecil Frances Alexander Public Domain

So, which of the other two hymns were written by Cecil Frances Alexander? The correct answer is that she’s the author of both ‘There is a green hill far away’ and ‘All things bright and beautiful’. These two, and ‘Once in Royal David’s City’ first appeared in Alexander’s Hymns for Little Children in1848. The simple style and structure of all three will have been a major reason they became so popular.

Cecil married an Anglican clergyman who later became Bishop of Derry and Archbishop of Armagh, and spent much of her time caring for poor, sick or disadvantaged people, especially during the Irish potato famine (1845-1852). She has been criticised, however, for the original third verse of ‘All things bright and beautiful’ because it acknowledges the separation of classes: ‘The rich man in his castle, The poor man at his gate, God made them high or lowly, And ordered their estate.’ That verse is almost never sung today.

Question 4 pondered what treats are left out in some Scandinavian countries for elf-like creatures who bring presents at Christmas. A good number of votes in church went for sausages, even more for cakes, and only a few for porridge. But the correct answer is porridge. Apparently Scandinavian children think healthy food will speed elves on their way through a long night of leaving presents. There must be very healthy children and elves in Scandinavia.

Question 5 asks about the main ingredients of mince pies when first made and eaten 800 years ago. The options were Meat, Dried fruit, or Spices. The right answer is all three. And each part of the mince pie was there for a reason:

  • meat (mostly lamb or mutton) was simple food because it represented the shepherds
  • dried fruit (raisins, prunes and figs) because they were an affordable alternative to sugar to sweeten the mince pie
  • spices (cinnamon, cloves and nutmeg), were, along with the fruit, expensive items as they were imported from the Middle East, but their cost symbolised the lavish gifts of the wise men.

In those medieval times mince pies had 13 ingredients. Why 13? Because that was equal in number to Jesus and his 12 disciples.

Question 6 was about how many mince pies are sold in the UK during the run-up to Christmas. I offered alternatives of 80 thousand, 800 thousand or 800 million. The correct answer is a staggering 800 million. Of course that’s only how many are sold. It does not include all those baked at home, nor those bought or made at other times of the year.

To know how many mince pies per person are eaten each Christmas in the UK, you can’t just divide the population into 800 million. Why not? Because some people don’t like mince pies so never eat any. Then there are babies who can’t or shouldn’t eat mince pies, and young children who don’t like them now but may later in life. However, rough estimates suggest that those who like mince pies will eat between 15 and 19 per person at Christmas. Add to that all the other fattening foods they’ll consume, and it’s no mystery why many of us put on weight over Christmas!

Question 7 explains that mince pies have had various shapes, but asks what shape they were in medieval times. Were they round, star or rectangular? The correct answer is rectangular because they were baked in large dishes with that shape – and consequently often called ‘coffins’. But bakers of ancient times also recognised rectangular dishes were similar to a manger, and, with that in mind, many topped their pies with a pastry baby Jesus figure. Personally I can’t imagine cutting or biting into a pie decorated with Jesus. The round shape of mince pies – common today – dates only from the Reformation in the 1500s.

Part 3  Reflection

Christians tend to frown on the extravagance and excess of fringe activities which accompany Christmas – parties, decorations, gifts, over-indulgent meals, perhaps even the mince pies. Surely these things are not what Christmas is all about?

No, they are not. But there is nothing wrong with Christmas celebrations providing the fringe things do not become the main thing. Jesus went to a wedding reception with plenty of food and wine. He didn’t refuse to attend, objecting that food, drink and dancing were not what marriage is about. He joined others in celebrating what the main event meant, a couple pledging their love and lives to each other. Likewise, as long as we recognise that the main thing about Christmas is God coming into this world to save us, we can celebrate.

But we go wrong if we allow Christmas to stand alone. Christmas belongs with Easter, because Easter is the fulfilment of what began at Christmas. You need both to understand what God was doing by coming into this world. I’ll explain.

I grew up only nine miles from St Andrews, the ancient ‘home of golf’. When I was aged about 13, I entered the prestigious Eden Boys’ Golf Championship at St. Andrews. It was played on the Eden Golf Course, but those who qualified in the early rounds would play later rounds on the famous Old Course. I was playing well. I knew I’d qualify.

I arrived at the course, carrying my second hand clubs in an old canvas golf bag, and wearing the same clothes as I did when playing football with friends. But one boy, maybe aged 15, was dressed immaculately. He had a proper golf hat, proper golf slacks, proper golf sweater, proper golf shoes. And he’d brought brand new clubs in a brand new bag which contained brand new balls. He even had a caddie to carry his clubs and guide him round the course. He stepped onto the first tee with a swagger. His backswing was immaculate and the downswing looked good too. But clearly it wasn’t, because although the lad hit the ball hard, he sliced his shot way off to the right where it disappeared over the course boundary to land among old railway sheds. His caddie tossed the boy another brand new ball. He drove, and off to the right and out of bounds that one went too. So did number 3. Number 4 did not, only because he topped the ball and it ran a mere 100 yards down the fairway. As he walked away, I saw no swagger, just a crestfallen figure who knew he’d lost any chance of winning on the first hole. I wasn’t going to do that.

I didn’t. My chances didn’t disappear on the first hole, just on almost every hole after that. From hole 2 on, my drives and fairway shots went all over the place and my putts kept missing the hole. I was well over par after nine holes.  My Dad had come to watch me. He was a very good player with a low single figure handicap. That day he was at the side of every fairway, and I knew he would be silently cheering me on. But, as I messed up yet another shot, I was thinking ‘Today what I need is not my Dad watching me; I need him to come over here and play the shots for me.’ Which, of course he couldn’t. I didn’t qualify.

Christmas is not about God watching us as we mess up our lives. It is about God coming from heaven to earth to save us. We mess up – so much of what we think and do is out of bounds – but God did not sit in heaven, wringing his hands and feeling sorry or angry about our lives. He came, not to watch us but to save us. That began with his birth into this world at Christmas, and was completed when he died and rose again at Easter.

God – ruler, judge over all – stepped down to be with sinful men and women, and then take the penalty on the cross for their sins. He died in our place. The angel who told Joseph to take Mary as his wife said: “She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins” (Matthew 1:21). To save us is why he came. That is why Christmas matters so much. I am all for celebrating Christmas. It’s a wonderful, joyous time. The Lord has come. All people on earth should receive their king. Watching from a distance would not have been enough. He came right alongside to save us, and that’s what makes Christmas so special.

[1] Quotation from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlotte_of_Mecklenburg-Strelitz

[2] By 1848 the couple had six children and they are shown in the painting: Victoria (1840), Albert Edward (1841), Alice (1843), Alfred (1844), Helena (1846), and their newest arrival, Princess Louise, born in March 1848. Eventually there were nine children, five daughters, four sons. Their last child – Princess Beatrice – was born in 1857. She died in 1944, having long outlived not only her mother but all her siblings.

Christmas Quiz part 2

Welcome to the second of three parts of a Christmas Quiz I prepared and used at a recent church service. All ages were present, so some questions were aimed at the children (though several adults raised their hands, perhaps young at heart).

If you have not read and engaged with part 1 of this series, I’d strongly urge you to do so before moving on to this quiz. You’ll find it at: https://occasionallywise.com/2025/12/27/christmas-quiz-part-1/ As well as tackling the first quiz, you’ll understand better the three sections in each of the quizzes – 1) the quiz; 2) the answers; 3) a personal reflection.

I hope you do well with Quiz 2. And that you don’t disbelieve the story near the end of my bizarre and dangerous journey… There is a point to it. From both the quiz and reflection I trust you will learn, enjoy, and feel challenged!

Part 1  The wise men who visited Jesus

Q1  The wise men came from the east to find Jesus. No-one knows for sure, but where did they travel from?

  1. Europe, perhaps Italy or Greece
  2. Ancient Persia, perhaps countries like Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan
  3. North Africa, perhaps Egypt or Mauretania

Q2  How did the wise men travel to visit Jesus?

  1. Taxi
  2. Plane
  3. Camel
  4. Walked

Q3  How long would the journey have taken for the wise men to visit Jesus?

  1. 5 days
  2. 50 days
  3. 500 days

Q4  What were the names of the wise men?

  1. Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar
  2. Matt, Tommy, Alex
  3. We don’t know

Q5  We don’t know how many wise men there were, but we do know they brought three gifts: gold, frankincense and myrrh. Each gift had a special significance. But only one of the gifts below is described correctly, which means two gifts have wrong descriptions. Which gift has the right description?

  1. Gold – used in worship of God
  2. Frankincense – a gift for a king
  3. Myrrh – an embalming oil used after death

Q6  Why did the wise men take a different route home?

  1. They wanted to do some sightseeing
  2. They took a wrong turning – went west instead of east
  3. They didn’t want to be forced to tell Herod where Jesus was
  4. King Herod’s soldiers were searching for them because they had failed to obey his order to return to him after visiting Jesus

Part 2  Answers to Quiz 2 questions

Question 1 mentions that the Bible says the wise men came from the east (Matthew 2: 1), but asks us to be more specific about where they were from. The best answer here is ancient Persia, most likely from modern day Iran. They would have travelled on trade routes which extended from Europe all the way to China. The alternative answers are obviously wrong – since they came from the east their homes were neither to the west nor the south.

Question 2 – asking how the wise men travelled – was really for the children, all of whom knew which answers were silly: there were no taxis or planes back then.So the choice is that either they rode on camels or they walked. Keep in mind that the question asked how the wise men travelled. I point that out because the wealth of the magi makes it near certain that they rode on camels. But their servants will have walked.

Question 3 is about how many days it would have taken for the wise men to reach Jesus. The options in the question were 5 days / 50 days / 500 days. In this case, calculation and guesswork are both required.

First, we have to guess more exactly where the wise men started from. Persia covered a vast amount of the ancient world, in ancient times that was from countries in modern-day eastern Europe right across to parts of India and south to Egypt. It was smaller by the time Jesus was born but still large. Estimates, then, of how far the wise men and their servants travelled range from 500 to 1200 miles (805 km to 1931 km). I believe 1000 miles (1609 km) is a reasonable estimate.

Second, several factors will have affected how fast the wise men travelled:

  • Because their attendants will not have been provided with camels, progress will have been at walking pace
  • Even if they stuck to trade routes, the terrain would often be difficult
  • The weather would rarely be ideal; dust storms, for example, would halt all progress
  • People and camels would need rest stops
  • They couldn’t carry everything necessary for the whole journey, so they would stop occasionally to buy fresh supplies
  • They went to Jerusalem and later moved on to Bethlehem – we have to allow time in both locations
  • We know they returned home by a different route, almost certainly one less-travelled, so probably less direct and with more difficult terrain

Accounting for all these factors, they are unlikely to have covered more than 20 miles per day. Based on the assumption of a 1000 mile journey, we can make this calculation: 1000 miles ÷ 20 miles per day = 50 days. Add in stops in Jerusalem and Bethlehem, and taking a ‘minor road’ home, the total journey out and back would be around 120 days, close to 4 months.

So, from the options on offer in the question, the nearest and therefore best answer for how long it took for the wise men to reach Jesus (just the outward journey) is 50 days.

Question 4 asks about the names of the wise men, offering a couple of options or the response ‘We don’t know’. When I asked this question in church, some voted for ‘Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar’, no-one for ‘Matt, Tommy, and Alex’, and most for ‘We don’t know’. The correct answer is ‘We don’t know’.

The Bible never tells us the names of the wise men. It’s unlikely Mary, Joseph or anyone around them asked them. For one thing they came from Persia. For another they spoke a different language. For yet another, they were eminent people, scholars of philosophy, medicine and the natural world, possibly advisors to Persian kings. You don’t probe people like that for personal information.

But, since those times, nothing has stopped people inventing names for them. The ancient names I included first appeared in an 8th century chronicle known as the Excerpta latina barbari asBithisarea, Melichior, and Gathaspa, though that religious chronicle is a Latin translation from a lost Greek manuscript written some 200 years earlier. So, at best, those names were created hundreds of years after the wise men visited Jesus. Wikipedia summarises some other options:

“Within Eastern Christianity, the Magi have varied names. Among Syrian Christians, they are Larvandad, Gushnasaph, and Hormisdas, which are approximations of typical Zoroastrian names, in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, they are Hor, Karsudan, and Basanater, while Armenian Catholics have Kagpha, Badadakharida and Badadilma.”

People seem fond of attributing names to mysterious people. But all names associated with the wise men of Jesus’ time are inventions. You may have wondered why the names of ‘Matt, Tommy and Alex’ were an option? Well, they were wise men. Matt Busby, Tommy Docherty, and Alex Ferguson were all very successful managers of the English football team Manchester United.[1]

Question 5 is slightly complicated. It lists the wise men’s gifts and the significance of those gifts. But two of the gifts have the wrong significance. Only one of the three is correct. But which one?

The first two are mixed up. Gold was not used in worship, nor was frankincense a gift for royalty. I should have written that gold was a gift for a king because then – as now – gold was precious and expensive, chosen by the wise men as a gift for Jesus in recognition that he was King of the Jews (and, indeed, of all people). Frankincense is a sweet, fragrant resin whose aroma is used in worship.[2] It was also expensive, but a worthy and appropriate gift for one who should be worshipped.

The only correct description of a wise man’s gift, then, was the third – that myrrh is an embalming oil used after death. Myrrh is a yellow, fragrant, sap-like resin that oozes from cuts in the bark of certain trees. Many hold it to offer medicinal benefits – and it can be an ingredient in ‘natural’ toothpastes – but scientists and doctors generally urge caution and want further studies about medical use of myrrh. In Jesus’ time, though, myrrh had antiseptic, preservative, and aromatic properties which is why it was used to embalm a dead body.

But embalming oil is a strange gift to be brought to the infant Jesus. Unless, as many think, this is the first hint that the baby born to Mary had a destiny related to his death. In our day we imagine that a young child will achieve great things during a long lifetime. But Jesus would not have a long lifetime. He would accomplish God’s will by accepting death in his early thirties. This child had a unique purpose, and the gift of myrrh foretold it would be fulfilled by laying down his life.

Question 6 is both humorous and serious in asking why the wise men took a different route for their journey home. We can discard the first two options – these wise men weren’t interested in sightseeing nor would students of the stars get confused and go west instead of east.

Options ‘3’ and ‘4’ are probably both true. The Bible provides only brief information about why the wise men’s plans changed: “And having been warned in a dream not to go back to Herod, they returned to their country by another route.” (Matthew 2:12)

The nearest correct answer is probably number ‘3’, that they didn’t want Herod to know where Jesus was. Why? Because he might kill him. When the wise men met Herod before, he told them to search out the child and then report his location to him “so that I too may go and worship him”. (Matthew 2:8) The wise men weren’t fooled. From all they knew about Herod, he was never going to worship Jesus. If this baby was King of the Jews, he was Herod’s rival and thus a target for assassination. To return to Herod’s palace would have meant imprisonment and torture for the wise men until they revealed Jesus’ whereabouts. So they made sure that could not happen.

The option ‘4’ answer – that failure to report to Herod meant they were now being hunted – will also be true. When they didn’t return to tell where Jesus was, we know Herod was “furious” (Matthew 2: 16) and this king was notorious for his cruelty towards those who displeased him. When I wrote before about Herod’s edict to kill all the boys aged under two around Bethlehem, I explained just how cruel Herod could be:

 The horrific truth about King Herod is that these deaths in Bethlehem were not the greatest evil of his reign. All his life he’d done terrible things. Early in his rule he’d killed off half the Jewish Sanhedrin (the ruling court for the Jews). Later he’d had 300 of his court officers put to death. He also murdered his mother-in-law, his wife, and three of his sons. Finally, when he lay dying, he gave orders that one member of each family in Israel was to be killed. Why? To guarantee the nation would be mourning at the time he died. (Thankfully, with Herod dead, that last order was never carried out.) Herod has been described as “a man of ruthless cruelty…”. He certainly was. (From: https://occasionallywise.com/2025/01/25/doubly-wise-men/)

The wise men had outwitted and frustrated Herod, so his kill-squads would be hunting for them. Had they not taken another route, they would never have got home.

Part 3  Reflection

The wise men are usually portrayed as lovable and loyal men who made a long journey to give gifts to baby Jesus, which is probably why giving gifts made its way into Christmas celebrations. It’s all very lovely.

What is little recognised is the immense faith, cost and risk involved for those wise men to find Jesus. Here is my summary:

  • Their guidance to travel came from seeing a star in the sky. It takes great faith to launch out on a long journey based just on that.
  • They knew they would find only a baby, not a new ruler already established in a palace. But still they went because they believed this baby was like no other: the child God had placed on earth to rule over all people.
  • They ventured into unknown countryside. They would never have travelled so far west before. They couldn’t know how long the journey would take or the hazards they’d face. But they set off anyway.
  • The expedition would have been at great expense. They needed camels, servants, tents and other supplies. And the presents they carried were very costly, but they were presents worthy of putting before a new king.
  • Groups like theirs were often the target of thieves who attacked camel trains moving slowly along the main routes. The wise men and their attendants were in constant danger of being robbed and killed.
  • Having found Jesus, they refused Herod’s command to reveal Jesus’ location – that decision could have cost them everything.

Despite all that, the wise men risked their lives and their riches in order to bow before Jesus and present their gifts. All those who profess to follow Jesus, including me, need to ask what we are willing to give up to worship and serve Jesus.

As General Director of a large mission agency, I visited many poor or damaged communities. One of those was high up a mountain on a small island on the west edge of Indonesia, not long after the major tsunami hit the area in 2004. I was told that the residents of the village we would visit were deeply impoverished – $1 a day workers. There was a small church in that village, and my role was to encourage and help where possible.

Along with a colleague and a few locals, we rented a ‘bus’, which was no more than the size of a VW camper van. The early travel into the foothills of the mountain was not especially difficult, but before long we moved from a made-up road to an earth track. It quickly became steeper and steeper, and muddier and muddier. On left and right were deep valleys. A small slide sideways and we’d be gone. Then, looking ahead, I thought our journey could not continue because the track had collapsed down into a valley. Our driver was undaunted. He found a marginally navigable path down into the valley, across a small river, and then back up to rejoin the main track beyond the collapsed section. We did that several times.

Then we really came to a halt. A complete halt. Our ‘bus’ had broken down. The engine had stopped and refused to restart. We clambered out to be met by a wall of heat. The Equator runs right through Indonesia, and daytime heat, even part-way up a mountain, is severe. It was impossibly hot to stay in our broken down bus behind glass, but it was little better outside since there was almost no shelter. There was no choice really, so for nearly three hours we waited at the side of the road in baking sun for another ‘bus’ to rescue us. Finally another camper van style vehicle arrived, we climbed in and went on our way twisting and sliding, always within inches of disaster.

The people of the village and surroundings had been told we’d arrive during the afternoon. Now it was late afternoon and we were only part way up the mountain. We would not get to the village until mid evening, hours after dark. They would all have gone home. But they hadn’t. As we finally pulled in it was obvious no-one had left. Everyone had waited for us.

I was met by the pastor, a young man no more than 20 years old. He was overjoyed that we had come to his village and to his church. The fact that we’d made that tortuous journey clearly mattered to him and his people. After we had eaten some food, the pastor asked if I would like to see where he lived and studied. Of course I would. He pulled back a curtain behind the church platform to reveal a small area with a blanket on the floor as his bed, and what looked like a school desk as the place where he worked. There may have been a box in which he kept his few clothes. He had no other possessions and no other home. His pay? Almost nothing, though the congregation provided his meals. The pastor was thankful for the privilege of serving his church. I was thankful they had a young man such as him as their pastor.

It was now very late, but everyone gathered for the church service. The pastor told me I would preach and afterwards cast out demons from three women. I was used to preaching but casting out demons was not in my normal church ‘order of service’. Nevertheless I nodded, and the service began. I preached with an interpreter, sticking to short sentences and avoiding references to events or situations beyond the understanding of these people. It seemed to go well. Towards the end of the service, the three women were brought to me, and with some difficulty I spoke words over each of them to set them free from the work of the devil. That apparently went well too. The women had been helped.

The village, of course, had no street lights so we stepped out into total darkness, and climbed into our bus for the return journey. Then we faced our latest and greatest problem. The headlights on the bus would not work. Nothing the driver did could make those lights shine. I resigned myself to spending the night somewhere in the village. But our driver was determined to get his bus and passengers down the mountain. His young assistant, aged about 15, was given a hand torch (a flashlight) and told to sit on the roof of the bus and light our path. That was crazy. The lad would almost certainly be thrown off the roof as we swung from side to side going down the bumpy and twisty road, and I was sure the light from his torch would not show us more than a few yards ahead. But off we set. The assistant’s torch was as feeble as I predicted, but by going very slowly the driver kept us on the track. Despite many hair-raising moments we crawled down that mountain safely.

Next morning I thought through the events of the day before. Gradually those thoughts did not centre on my risk, or my discomfort, or my potential demise. The tortuous journey was the event of just one day, one tiny part of my life. That was as nothing in hardship compared to what the 20-year-old pastor experienced as night after night he slept on a blanket on the floor, and day after day ministered to desperately poor villagers. He had accepted God’s call to serve in a remote village – no health care, no backup, no pay, no normal accommodation. There was no way he was comfortable. But he did not expect to be. His life was dedicated to worshipping and following Jesus no matter how great the cost. Jesus had given his life for him, and now he was giving his life for Jesus. That young man deeply challenged me.

The wise men risked everything to find Jesus. For those of us who, in any sense, have found Jesus, how much risk, hardship and sacrifice are we accepting to serve the one who came to be our king and our saviour?

[1] And they were all Scottish!

[2] Frankincense is still used today in worship but also in aromatherapy, skincare, and other traditional forms of medicine. It is considered by some but not all to have qualities to manage conditions like inflammation.

Christmas Quiz part 1

I was asked to preach in our church on a Sunday morning just before Christmas. All ages would be present, so I didn’t preach. Instead I created a multiple choice style Christmas Quiz, and asked people to vote for right answers, including a few questions especially for children. Some possible answers were deliberately funny or odd, but giving out the right answers allowed truth to be communicated. Thankfully, everyone got involved. No-one fell asleep. And the feedback afterwards was positive.

I hope the quiz will also be a positive experience for readers here. What follows is the first part of the quiz presented in three parts. First, the questions. Second, the answers including extra details. Third, a reflection related to the main subject in that quiz. I don’t usually get ‘preachy’ in my posts, but the reflections were a core part of how I presented the quiz in church and they belong here too.

Here goes. Don’t cheat by looking ahead to the answers before you commit to your own answers to the questions. Above all, learn and enjoy!

Part 1  Questions related to the birth of Jesus

Q1 Matthew chapter 1 lists ancestors of Jesus. One of the following would not normally be wanted in an Israelite’s family line. Which one?

  1. Rahab
  2. Ruth
  3. Zerubbabel

Q2 Joseph and Mary travelled from Nazareth to Bethlehem just before Jesus was born. Why go there?

  1. Because there were better maternity services in Bethlehem
  2. Because Bethlehem was nearer to the holy city of Jerusalem
  3. Because the Romans required everyone to be counted in their own city

Q3 It was about 80 miles (129 km) from Nazareth to Bethlehem. Did Mary:

  1. Walk?
  2. Ride on a donkey?
  3. Ride on a camel?
  4. Ride on Joseph’s shoulders?

Q4 There was no accommodation available for Joseph and Mary in Bethlehem. So where was Jesus born?

  1. In the basement of a house
  2. In a stable
  3. In a cow shed
  4. In a cave

Q5 A manger is where food was put for animals to eat. In Jesus’ time, what was a manger made from?

  1. Masonry (such as bricks)
  2. Stone
  3. Wood

Q6 An angel told Joseph that, when Mary gave birth to a son, he was to give him the name Jesus. Why that name?

  1. Because it was the most popular boys’ name at the time
  2. Because the angels in heaven had voted for that name
  3. Because the name Jesus had special meaning

Part 2  Answers to Quiz 1 questions

Question 1 asked which ancestor an Israelite would not want in their family line. The answer is Ruth. Why not the others? Rahab, after all,had an unsavoury occupation in Jericho, but she hid the Israeli spies so was accepted after Jericho fell. Zerubbabel would have been a popular ancestor – he was the descendant of David who was appointed to be leader of the first group of Jews who returned to Jerusalem after captivity in Babylon.

Why not want Ruth as your ancestor? The answer lies in Ruth’s background. Ruth came from Moab, a nation regarded as immoral, idolatrous, and so great an enemy of Israel that Deuteronomy contains a ban on Moabites entering the assembly of the Lord (23:3). But Ruth was excused because of her marriage to Boaz and her loyalty to her mother-in-law, Naomi, which included this remarkable declaration: “Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried” (Ruth 1: 16-17).

Question 2 was about why Joseph and Mary went to Bethlehem. There weren’t better maternity services – Bethlehem was a village, with, at most, one woman who delivered babies. Yes, it was closer to Jerusalem, just 6 miles (9 km) south of the city. But the reason Joseph and Mary went to Bethlehem is that the Roman authorities had given them no choice because their census required everyone to go to their home city, which, for Joseph, meant taking his family to Bethlehem. Luke described that this way in his gospel: “In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world.(This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.) And everyone went to their own town to register. So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child (Luke 2: 1-5).”

Question 3 asked how Mary travelled during the 80 mile journey from Nazareth to Bethlehem.Being nearly full-term pregnant, she would not have ridden on Joseph’s shoulders (though I did tell the church the experience Alison and I had like that – check this footnote for details.[1])Nor, since it’s very likely Joseph and Mary were poor, could they have afforded a camel for her to ride. So, the only realistic options were for her to walk or ride on a donkey. Though no donkey is mentioned in the Bible’s birth story, the most likely answer is that she sat on a donkey for 80 gruelling miles.

Question 4 raises the issue of where they stayed in Bethlehem. This can seem complicated. If it’s not interesting for you, skip to the end of this explanation.

The traditional story is that the inn was full because so many were in the village for the census count. That may be right, but not necessarily. Much depends on how the Greek word kataluma (κατάλυμα) is translated, because it can mean ‘inn’ or ‘guest room’. Kataluma is the word used in Luke 2:7 where most translations (but not the New International Version) say there was no place for the family in the inn. But Luke also uses the word kataluma in 22:11 when Jesus sends his disciples ahead to enquire about the ‘guest room’ where they can observe the Passover. So, using the same word, did Luke mean ‘inn’ or ‘guest room’ when he was explaining where there was no accommodation for Mary and Joseph?

A clue to the answer might lie in the fact that Luke uses a completely different word pandocheion (πανδοχεῖον) when he describes how the Good Samaritan left the wounded traveller to be cared for at an inn (Luke 10:34). That may suggest that in chapter 2 Luke was not referring to an inn being full, but that the guest room in a house was already full, hence Joseph and Mary had to settle in a place where animals were fed. Where would that have been for them? When I travelled in rural parts of Asia, I saw families keep animals below their living area. Preparing one lunch involved choosing a hen from those scuttling around below the floor where we sat. Similarly, in a Judean village in ancient times, the lowest area of the house often provided overnight shelter for animals. If not there, they might get night-time shelter in a cave near the main house.

Since we don’t have precise information, the best answers for question 4 are either ‘a basement area’ or ‘a cave’.

There could be one more answer, not listed in the question, if we are thinking only of where Jesus was born. People of those times were very hospitable, and especially so with a young woman close to giving birth. Therefore, when Mary went into labour, it’s likely she was brought into the main area of the house and helped to give birth there, and only after Mary and Jesus were safe and settled was the newborn laid in a manger downstairs.

Question 5 asks what a manger[2] was made from. The traditional image of the manger is of a wooden construction raised up above the ground. That is near-certainly wrong. Wood was necessary for many things, but not to contain animal feed. Nor were shaped bricks required. A manger was no more than a box-shaped area capable of containing animal food and accessible for the animals eating it. So – with stones plentiful all over the countryside – building a manger involved no more than creating a shape, perhaps rectangular, with stones laid on the ground. Therefore the right answer is that a manger was made from stone, and that’s where the baby Jesus was laid.[3]

Question 6 says Joseph was told by an angel that the baby to be born should be named ‘Jesus’ and asks why that name. Apart from one or two rebels, no-one in the church voted that the reason was because Jesus was the most popular boys’ name at the time, or that the angels had chosen it by a vote. So that left only the right answer: the name Jesus had special meaning. According to Matthew (in his gospel, chapter 1:21), long before Jesus was born, an angel told Joseph he must take Mary to be his wife, then added these significant words: “She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.” Why did the name Jesus carry that that meaning? The answer is because Jesus is the Greek form of Joshua, and Joshua means ‘the Lord saves’. In other words, the baby carried by Mary should be called Jesus because the Son of God would be born on earth in order to save people from their sins. His name described his mission.

Part 3  Reflection

In modern times, we’ve wrapped up Christmas in tinsel, lights, winter scenes, heart-tugging romantic films, family gatherings, plentiful food, and the happy story of a new baby being visited by shepherds and brought gifts by wise men.[4] But what happened 2000 plus years ago is rugged, raw and very different from our homely stories. The reality was a tortuous 80 mile journey, a woman suffering all the usual pains of labour, probably giving birth in a basement or cave, and laying her new-born in an animal feeding trough. That woman was, in fact, a girl in her mid teens, a baby born into poverty, then hunted by a jealous monarch’s kill squad, and becoming a refugee with his parents as they fled to safety in another land.

There was nothing ‘tinsely’ about all that. But this was God coming into the world as a human being. In his gospel, describing Jesus as ‘the Word’, the apostle John wrote: “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us” (John 1:14). God came to where we are. He had to; there was no other way to save us.

In the early hours of 7th September, 1838, the paddle steamer Forfarshire was shipwrecked on rocks near the Farne Islands, off the NE coast of England. The larger part of the vessel sank quickly taking more than 50 people to their death. From a nearby island, 22-year-old Grace Darling saw the wreck from her upstairs bedroom in the lighthouse where her father, William, was keeper. She spotted survivors clinging to rocks, but certain to die soon as waves pounded the area. The weather was too rough for a lifeboat to launch, but Grace and her father pushed a 21 foot (6.5 metre) rowing boat into the water. Normally that boat required four oarsmen, but Grace and William together rowed their boat through treacherous seas for over a mile to reach the stranded survivors. Nine people were saved. Grace became famous once the rescue story became known, and she and her father were awarded medals for bravery. Sadly Grace died from tuberculosis just four years later.

Painting by Thomas Musgrave Joy. In Public Domain

But Grace’s courage, strength and determination meant lives were saved. She could not merely watch from the comfort and safety of her lighthouse bedroom. Nor could she wait on the shore, hoping that somehow these people would save themselves. She, and her father, did the only thing that could rescue them – they left the safety of the shore, went into the raging sea, rowed to where the eight sailors and one passenger were, and by going to them saved them.

And that is what Christmas is about. God did not lament a lost world from a distance. He loved the world so much that that he came down from heaven’s glory to be alongside us and save us. It was hard, cruel and painful. But had Jesus not come we would be lost.

Look out for the second part of the Christmas Quiz – coming soon!

[1] The imminent arrival of a new baby often motivates parents to decorate or rearrange the home. For Alison and me, that meant we rushed to finish painting our very small shower room. It was so small, no ladder would fit inside, so we could not reach the very top of the shower space. So – with baby due any day – Alison sat on top of my shoulders, paint pot in one hand and brush in the other, and painted the previously unreachable area. Our son was born the same week.  

[2] The word ‘manger’ comes from the Old French word mangier (now manger) = to eat.

[3] In an article I read recently, the writer said Jesus was born in a manger. I shudder to picture that. He should have said Jesus was laid in a manger.

[4] The next quiz will be about the visit of the wise men.

Christmas miscellany

There are only a few days to go before Christmas. In the UK, like many western countries, people seem geared towards an over-indulgent holiday season. Too much money will be spent on presents. Too much food and drink will be consumed. Too much effort will go into trying to ensure everyone has a wonderful time. Too much time will be spent watching special programmes on TV. And too few will reflect on the birthday of Jesus Christ, the event which should undergird everything we are celebrating.

But I’ve never believed in being a grumbler about Christmas. I enjoy Christmas though I admit that I don’t get close to crazy excited like I did when I was young. I’d wish more people thought about its origins, but even if they don’t it is still a wonderful season, including special time with family and giving and receiving presents.

For this last blog post before Christmas I’ve assembled a miscellany of things about Christmas. Some are serious, some less important. But I hope they’re all interesting. Enjoy reading.

Church or pub on Christmas Day

In the UK, only about 5 per cent of the population attend church regularly. That number may not be exact. Pollsters do not all use the same methods, and definitions of ‘regular church attendance’ aren’t all identical. Nevertheless, I suspect the 5 per cent figure is close to being right. My home nation is predominantly non-churched. Except, that is, at Christmas.

It’s not unusual to see full churches for Christmas Eve midnight services. I used to lead and preach at services like that. They could be eventful if some of those weaving their way home after an evening in the pub decided to join the service. All were welcome but not all were at peace with the world or church decorum.

Fewer attend church on Christmas Day. Other things capture attention, not least keeping children calm while they rip the paper wrappings off presents. Then there’s the massive task of preparing and serving a big meal for family and friends. Turkey is the traditional dish in the UK for a Christmas Day meal.

But ‘Statista’ asked people whether they plan to attend church on Christmas Day or spend their time and money in the pub. The answers they got surprised me. Take a look at the chart comparing church or pub attendance for the USA, UK and Germany.

Clearly the USA has the highest percentage of people who will attend church on Christmas Day – 19 per cent. To my surprise the UK trails by only 3 points at 16 per cent, but Germany scores only 12 per cent. However, what all three nations have in common is that church wins over pub. I don’t know why that happens. My guess is that, for some, there may be a long-observed family tradition of going to church on Christmas Day. Others may pass through church doors for a service of lessons and carols but that will be their one-time attendance until next Christmas. However, of course, most Christmas Day churchgoers are people with a real faith in Jesus. They make a priority of attending church to worship before other events overtake their day.  

The odd ancestry of Jesus

Some families have an unkempt uncle, an agonising aunt, or a grouchy grandparent, but Jesus had some really strange ancestors. Certainly Matthew, the writer of the first gospel in the New Testament, did not sanitise his list of Jesus’ forebears.

A few years ago I wrote two blog posts about those ancestors of Jesus. If you haven’t read those posts, I’d encourage you to do so now. I promise they’re interesting, challenging and encouraging. Here are the links:

The odd ancestry of Jesus, part 1
The odd ancestry of Jesus, part 2

Why is Christmas on December 25?

Why the 25th of December? Well, the first thing to say is that it’s unlikely that Jesus was born in late December. Scholars point out that shepherds wouldn’t have their flocks out in fields in mid-winter. It would also be a strange season  to travel with your heavily pregnant wife back to your hometown to be counted in a census (see the opening verses of Luke’s gospel, chapter 2, for mention of that census). For various reasons biblical scholars mostly consider that sometime between spring and summer is more likely for the time of Jesus’ birth.

What is also interesting is that the date of Jesus’ birth was not celebrated or even considered by the early Christians. Matthew’s and Luke’s gospels carry the story of his birth, but there’s no mention of a date. In fact the date of the Saviour’s birth was never discussed by the church until at least the 2nd century.

Two or three theories are put forward now for why December 25 was later made Jesus’ birthday.

A Roman and Christian historian called Sextus Julius Africanus dated a lot of things. (He was born around 180 and died around 250 AD.) For example, he calculated that creation was complete on March 25, 5499 BC. Sextus stuck with March 25 as the exact date when Jesus was conceived in Mary’s womb. That day had already been considered as the date of Jesus’ crucifixion, and perhaps Sextus thought it appropriate to date Jesus’ conception and death on exactly the same date (not in the same year, of course!). How does that affect the date of Christmas? Think: if Jesus was conceived on March 25, nine months later is December 25. Simple really. Well, it was for Sextus, so for him December 25 was the date Jesus was born.

But there could also be another reason for the date. In 274 AD, the Roman emperor Aurelian marked the rebirth of the Unconquered Sun (Sol Invictus) on December 25. Why then? The 25th was just after the winter solstice, and therefore the beginning of days that would gradually get longer. For Emperor Aurelian, December 25 was when the sun had been reborn so there should be a celebration. Move forward to the next century when Emperor Constantine ruled. He was a convert to Christianity who had made his faith the religion of the empire. In 336, and perhaps because he wanted to wean his empire away from pagan gods, he overlaid the Sol Invictus festival on December 25 by marking that date as the birth of Jesus. Thus December 25 became established in the western Roman empire as what we now call Christmas. January 6 was favoured in the east, and the modern Armenian church continues to mark the January date.

There is a popular, broader idea that the date of Christmas was fixed to replace a variety of pagan feasts held in mid winter. That suggestion was never made until the 12th century, and today’s scholars point out that the early Christians didn’t have any interest in borrowing dates from pagan religions. If anything, they distanced themselves from other faiths.

What we shouldn’t confuse here are two very different things. One is the idea of borrowing the date of Jesus’ birth from pagan religions. The other is adopting traditions for Christmas from those religions. The obvious example of the latter is the use of the Christmas tree, which does seem to have originated in the worship of the Druids. They were Celtic priests who decorated their temples with evergreens as a symbol of everlasting life.[1]

No-one can say with certainty why December 25 became the date for Jesus’ birth. Perhaps thinking of March 25 as Jesus’ conception in Mary’s womb, on the same date as his death during Passover, is what led people to the nine months later date for his birth, but there is no complete evidence to support any theory. Since Victorian times we’ve been bombarded at Christmas with wintry images of reindeer, snow flakes, snow covered trees, and children building snowmen. Then, from 1941, we’ve crooned along with Bing Crosby singing ‘I’m dreaming of a white Christmas’. Who would want to surrender all that for another date? I’d consider it. Australians don’t seem too sad about celebrating Christmas on the beach. I could get used to that too.

For more on the date of Christmas, you’ll find a well-written scholarly article – easily understood by non-scholars – here: https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/people-cultures-in-the-bible/jesus-historical-jesus/how-december-25-became-christmas/

Victoria, Albert and Christmas trees

Evergreen trees have always been popular because, well, they’re evergreen. Deciduous trees, like oak, chestnut and beech, flourish and then for half the year seem to lose their life. Evergreens are fully alive all the time.

So from the most ancient of times – long before Christianity – people collected evergreen branches to hang over doors and windows. In some cultures those evergreens were thought to shut out demons and other evil spirits, and even illness. During a long, hard winter the green branches were also a reminder that spring would come and plants and crops would grow again.

But how did that become the Christmas tree tradition?

There’s no single answer to that question, but there’s evidence that by the 16th century Christians in Germany were bringing evergreen trees into their homes and decorating them. There’s a story – possibly true – that the famous church reformer, Martin Luther, walked home on a dark but clear winter night feeling awestruck by the bright stars overhead. So he erected a tree in his home, and fastened lighted candles to its branches to recapture something of the magnificence he had seen outside.  

That German tradition slowly spread across Europe. But its popularity soared in the mid 1800s when Queen Victoria’s German husband, Albert, had trees erected in Windsor Castle and, in 1848, allowed a front cover painting to appear in The Illustrated London News showing the main tree covered in decorations and surrounded by the Royal Family. Other papers picked up on the story, and it massively influenced upper class customs in Britain and many other countries. Royal fever did its work.

Image in public domain

During the following decades and into the 20th century, the tradition of the Christmas tree spread quickly and widely. Across the western world almost all homes had Christmas trees. Local authorities mounted Christmas trees in public squares and on their buildings. Large stores placed trees on their balconies and in the main retail areas. Towns and cities publicised ceremonies of switching on the lights on large Christmas trees in prominent places. For example, since 1933 and continuing now, a large Norway spruce tree has been used for the Rockefeller Center Christmas Tree in New York. The 2024 tree is 74ft (22.5m) tall, 43 ft (13.1m) wide, and weighs about 11 tons (24,250 pounds, 11000kg). After the Christmas period, the tree will be donated to Habitat for Humanity and cut into lengths to help with building homes. In Washington DC the National Christmas Tree is erected near the White House, and its lights switched on by the President and First Lady. Trafalgar Square in London has had a Christmas tree donated by Oslo, Norway, every year since 1947. The 2024 tree is 20 metres (65.6ft) tall and has already been scaled by a protestor dressed as Santa Claus.

For a long time now Alison and I have had only artificial Christmas trees in our home, principally for three reasons: that means a real tree is still growing in the forest; artificial trees leave no mess; they can be used for many years. We follow a common tradition of laying presents around the base of the Christmas tree. When our children were young, those presents sparked curiosity which led to exploration. The children would secretly examine the size and weight of each neatly wrapped present, probably hoping the biggest and heaviest was for them. One thing we never have done or will do is sing around the Christmas tree. The TV series Downton Abbey portrays how the aristocratic family would sing along with their servants beside a giant Christmas tree. We have never done that. Maybe it’s because we don’t have servants. Or because we’re not very tuneful.

‘Once in Royal David’s City’

Every Christmas Eve millions in the UK and around the world tune in to a service of carols broadcast from King’s College, Cambridge. The first TV broadcast was in 1954, and then the service televised regularly from 1963. For over 100 years one tradition at the start of that service has not changed. Since 1919 the opening carol has been Once in Royal David’s City, with the first verse sung unaccompanied by a boy soprano. For that soprano, the thought of your solo being heard around the world must be terrifying. What must make it worse is that no-one knows who will be the soloist until the choirmaster selects one of the sopranos just as the service begins. A nod or pointed finger in your direction, and seconds later your voice penetrates the silence. And millions are listening.

The writer of ‘Once in Royal David’s City’ was born Cecil Frances Humphries in 1818 in County Wicklow, Ireland. ‘Royal David’s City’ wasn’t her only famous hymn  – I’ll mention two more shortly. They may surprise you. Keep reading…

Cecil began writing poems in her school journal from an early age. They were beautifully composed in style and content, and that led to the publication of her first book of poetry called Verses for Seasons, a kind of ‘Christian Year’ of readings for children. That was only the beginning. Overall she wrote more than 400 hymns, basing them on subjects like the Apostles’ Creed, baptism, prayer, the Lord’s Supper and the Ten Commandments. All of them were written in simple language so children could understand and enjoy them.

When Cecil was 30, her book Hymns for Little Children was published. Each hymn was written to bring out the truth of some Christian teaching. Of course, without music the hymns read like poetry. But one year after publication a gifted English organist, Henry John Gauntlett, read Hymns for Little Children, and so loved ‘Once in Royal David’s City’ he composed music for it. As a hymn it was immensely popular and before long it was being sung far and wide.

Its origins as a children’s hymn show by the many direct lessons or references to children in the carol. For example, Cecil writes:

  • Christian children all must be / Mild, obedient, good as He.
  • For he is our childhood’s pattern; / Day by day, like us He grew;
  • And He leads His children on / To the place where He is gone.
  • Where like stars His children crowned / All in white shall wait around.

Cecil tells the story of Jesus in the carol, but also applies lessons and truths of the Christian faith for the children who would read or sing it. And that, after all, was her purpose. Hymns for Little Children carries a dedication by Cecil to her godsons, in which she hopes that the language of verse which children love “may help to impress on their minds what they are, what I have promised for them, and what they must seek to be”.

Two years later, in 1850, Cecil married Rev William Alexander (hence her hymns carry the name Cecil Frances Alexander). He eventually became the Anglican Primate of Ireland, a very senior role. Cecil poured her energies into writing hymns but also care for the very poor. The disastrous Irish potato famine – known as the Great Famine or Great Hunger – lasted from 1845-1852.[2] The parishes of Ireland were filled with masses of the disadvantaged. Cecil poured her heart and hands into care for them. Often she’d travel miles in difficult conditions to bring comfort to the sick and poor, and to give them food, medical supplies and warm clothes. Along with  her sister, she also founded a school for the deaf.

Cecil wrote many hymns before she died in 1895. One of those was the classic Easter hymn ‘There is a green hill far away’. Another was the hymn loved by children and adults ‘All things bright and beautiful’. Many have regarded Cecil Frances Alexander as one of the greatest hymn writers in the English language.

Eating mince pies at Christmas

There is every good reason to eat mince pies, but no special reason to eat them only at Christmas. They are just as enjoyable at any time of year.

Plate of freshly baked festive Christmas mince pies with decorated golden crusts and spicy fruit filling served sprinkled with sugar, one broken open to reveal the filling. By christmasstockimages.com – http://christmasstockimages.com/free/food-dining/slides/mince_pie_plate.htm, CC BY 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=97503821

Mince pies date from medieval times but back then they were shaped like a rectangular manger, with a pastry baby Jesus on top. I’d find it hard to bite into that. The round shape of mince pies came only after the Reformation in the 1500s.

People of old linked the ingredients of mince pies with the Christmas story:

  • meat (mostly lamb or mutton) represented the shepherds
  • dried fruit (raisins, prunes and figs), along with spices (cinnamon, cloves and nutmeg), all expensive items, symbolised the wise men’s gifts
  • the mince pies had 13 ingredients in total, equating to Jesus and his 12 disciples.

Eating a mince pie every day of the 12 days of Christmas was thought to bring happiness for the following 12 months.

Around the time of the Reformation, Puritans tried to ban everything associated with Catholicism. That included mince pies. The pies soon made a comeback.

We can all be glad that ban did not last. The popularity of mince pies today is immense. In the UK about 800 million are sold in the run up to Christmas. Add to that the very many which are made in the home. Assuming they’re all eaten, that’s a lot of mince pies and a lot of calories. Some eat none of course – they’re not food for babies, nor does my 102-year-old mother-in-law eat them now. And there are some strange people who don’t like mince pies. A reasonable guess, then, is that those who like mince pies consume an average of between 15 and 19 pies per person at Christmas. Personally I’m a fan of home made pies served warm, and I’m not admitting how many I eat each year.

Finally…

I can’t finish without saying that, for me, Christmas isn’t about carols, mince pies, or presents around a Christmas tree. It is about Jesus, God’s Son, entering this world. No other birth changed the world like his.

My hope and prayer every Christmas is that people will think carefully about the one whose birth began it all (whatever the precise date). I wish you the happiest of Christmases and a new year ahead with many reasons to be thankful.

[1] https://www.history.com/topics/christmas/history-of-christmas-trees

[2] History.com records the famine’s toll: “Before it ended in 1852, the Potato Famine resulted in the death of roughly one million Irish from starvation and related causes, with at least another million forced to leave their homeland as refugees.” For a fuller description of the famine, see: https://www.history.com/topics/immigration/irish-potato-famine

I wish you a merry Christmas

On the eve of one of the most special days of the year, I wish you and all those you love a very merry Christmas. Not everyone in our multicultural and multifaith faith world celebrates Christmas, and I respect their views while disagreeing with them.

For some, Christmas is happening in the midst of terrible trouble – war, famine, poverty, abuse, homelessness, or other dreadful experiences. It’s worth remembering that the first ever Christmas – the birth of Jesus – happened during a cruel occupancy by an invading force (the Romans) and under tyrannical and savage local rule (by King Herod who massacred all Bethlehem-born male children aged under 2). The angels who announced Jesus’ birth spoke a message of peace, but we are still far from seeing that fulfilled everywhere.

For me, God’s Son entering this world tells me God has not abandoned us. We get so much wrong because of our selfishness, prejudice, and wickedness, and God might have given up on us and all humankind. But God hasn’t done that, and he sent his Son into the world to change lives. Many resist that change, but billions have found forgiveness, hope, freedom and love in knowing God.

To me that’s Christmas with real meaning. It’s serious and wonderful.

But, while listening to music in the build-up to Christmas, their messages are often light-hearted and fanciful. Yes, they give reasons for celebrating Christmas, but those reasons are not what this season is about.

Here’s the kind of thing I mean.

From my youngest I liked the idea that Santa Claus is coming to town. But, wait a minute, apparently Santa has a list, and he’s studying it to see who’s been naughty or nice, bad or good. On that basis, I don’t think I’d ever have had presents. And the idea that you only get something if you’re ‘good enough’ is not a healthy message.

Of course the theme of children and presents comes through a lot. I wish it could be Christmas every day paints a rosy picture of Christmas – the kids starts singing, bands are playing, bells are ringing. And how do we know It’s beginning to look a lot like Christmas? We know because there are toys in every store. If you are Barney you’re hoping for ‘hopalong’ boots, and if you’re Ben you want a pistol that shoots. Really? A pistol? Not the ideal present, IMHO.

But, no scary thoughts allowed. Christmas – just because of the season it is – must surely mean joy, joy, joy. Merry Christmas Everybody says everyone is having fun, and Merry little Christmas tells me my heart can be light, and all my troubles out of sight. Nice thoughts. If only they were true. But I’ve met too many people who found Christmas stressful (too much work and getting into debt), or sad (as they remember those no longer with them), or lonely (after I sent an elderly person a Christmas card, I got a thank you letter from her because my card was the only one she had received).

Surely, though, Christmas is the season for romance? Countless films suggest romance blooms at Christmas. The standard story-line is that lonely single woman meets handsome widower, and after some to-ing and fro-ing of feelings, they kiss and embark on an always happy future together. And, if that’s not quite working, then you can ask Santa to put Mr Right on the doorstep – or so All I want for Christmas says. But, Last Christmas warns us to be careful who we give our hearts to. Heart given on Christmas Day; heart taken away the very next day. So, this year, it’ll be given only to someone special. That’s certainly a good idea, but I’m not sure why it would be true only at Christmas.

I apologise if these last paragraphs sound mean. Actually, I quite enjoy most of these songs. My complaint is only when they suggest fun, presents, tradition, Christmas trees, Santa, parties, romance is what Christmas is all about.

For me, there’s so much more. One Christmas, many years ago, I knelt down and prayed words like these: Dear Lord, Christmas is your birthday. I can’t give you any ordinary present. But I am giving you my life for whatever you want to do with me.

That wasn’t the only time I’d offered my life to God, but that Christmas prayer was special. It was answered by new direction, new wisdom, new strength to do what I believed right with the gifts God had given me.

I can’t tell anyone what to pray, but if you know there’s something you should ‘give’ to God this Christmas, that would be wonderful.

May you be greatly blessed at Christmas and throughout the new year.

——————————

An apology: I’m very aware that my posting to Occasionally Wise has been irregular recently. The major reason is that from October I began a new course of full-time university study. So far it’s been both demanding and good. Posts will continue to appear, but I cannot promise what the frequency will be. Please be patient – thank you.