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.
- 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.
- 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?
Things are given as presents which no mortal every 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?
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.
C.S. Lewis, “What Christmas Means to Me,” God in the Dock (Eerdmans: 1970) 304-305.
1 comment:
So very true. Which one of us has not received a gift, and immediately thought, “Now what? What do I get them (of equal value and import - pun intended)/. How many times have we assured someone we gave a gift (simply because we were moved to generosity) we didn’t expect one in return - only to have one show up at our door, delivered either by Santa or Amazon (is there a difference)? Are we giving gifts in order to get one? Similar to the ‘name it and claim it’ pastors who teach their people to give (to the church/them) in order for God to give them health and wealth?
Shouldn’t I/we all take a lesson from our Lord? He came to give us forgiveness, life and salvation, a gift we could never equal in return. He gave us this gift with no expectation of any gift in return other than our faith (which is, indeed also a gift). Let this Christian holiday celebration be in the spirit of Christ our Lord. We can give nothing He has not given us, we can only receive.
Post a Comment