It was, according to the headline on Melanie McDonagh’s column in The Times of London, “an assault on Christianity.” Could it be the massacre of Christians in Nigeria or the banning of church worship in some cruel atheist dictatorship? No, it’s the London School of Economics renaming the Lent term “Winter”, the Easter break “Spring”, and so on.
As G.K. Chesterton once said, “Journalism largely consists in saying ‘Lord Jones is dead’ to people who never knew Lord Jones was alive.” And don’t worry, we’re still allowed to describe Chesterton as a Roman Catholic writer.
Actually, we’re allowed to say pretty much whatever we want on this subject, and the faith given to the world by a 1st-century Jewish messiah based on a permanent revolution of love, justice, and inclusion is unlikely to be smashed by an innocuous evolution of language at a British university.
In fact, it’s somewhat irrelevant. Perhaps slightly gratuitous but entirely understandable in a nation, and a university, that is increasingly post-Christian. Oxford and Cambridge maintain their Christian nomenclature, but then the colleges were often founded as monastic institutions, and one of them is a cathedral! In Canada, where the same issues are being discussed and debated, the argument against maintaining the past is even stronger.
I doubt whether most LSE students were particularly aware of the names of their academic terms, and it’s worth remembering than in the US—where Christianity is still a major factor in national life, and it would be difficult if not impossible for a non-Christian to be elected President—Spring Break has an iconic place in college culture.
This invincible over-reaction began at the end of January, around the same that some in the Church of England, and even here to a much lesser extent in the Anglican Church of Canada, commemorated, as they do each year, the 1649 execution of King Charles I. He is revered by these High Church stalwarts as a “saint and martyr” when in fact he was one of the least competent and most reckless monarchs in British history. Offered a stunningly generous peace offer by his Puritan opponents, Charles instead forced a second civil war that led to thousands of deaths.
Neither as wise as his father, James I, nor as tolerant as his son Charles II, Charles I was more sinner than sinned against. The civil wars in England, Ireland, and Scotland were incredibly destructive and bloody, and a better man may well have been able to prevent them. Yet still the cult continues with those who like their Christianity wrapped in patriotism and pomp, and sealed with a nice bow of nostalgia.
And nostalgia is what the LSE objections are largely about. England, though not Britain, may have an established church but hasn’t been a Christian nation in some time. The latest Office for National Statistics (ONS) findings, released just this week, show that more people in England and Wales under the age of 40 describe themselves as having “no religion” rather than being Christian, the first time that’s ever happened. Those numbers are likely to increase in years to come.
But appearances can be deceptive. Cathedrals and splendid churches pepper the landscape, archbishops are often featured on the news, and respected institutions use, or did use, medieval Christian terminology to divide their years. Churches, however, often struggle to continue, and cathedrals are more popular with tourists than worshippers.
Canada may not have the same length of history but we face the same sorts of issues all the time, and while the new right — trucks, flags, and abuse included — may not use the same tactics and words, it is similar in its fear of change and tendency to fall into hysteria and conspiracy theories. It’s all extremely damaging and also, sorry guys, entirely pointless. The thing about change is that it’s inevitable, and will continue in ever more surprising waves. So much easier to see the positives rather than scream or dream about the past. Better for your blood pressure too.
Christianity is in essence a personality cult, the personality in question being an itinerant preacher who, I believe, was also the Son of God. His appeal is not in what he wanted to preserve but in what he insisted on changing. To “assault” him would be to ignore his startlingly refreshing teaching, and that has nothing at all to do with Spring Break. And of course, I’m sure that’s not what is was either. Oh well, I’m way too old anyway.
