Unto us a Child is Born The awesome mystery of Chr
Unto us a Child is Born The awesome mystery of Christmas is contained in the dual nature of the infant Jesus: the knowledge of His almighty power, juxtaposed with the spectacle of His absolute vulnerability in the crib. At this season, we celebrate the birth of the Saviour. But we also ponder the helplessness of the newborn, and the gravity of responsibility that is placed on the shoulders of every parent. Whisked away by Mary and Joseph, Jesus escaped the horrific wrath of Herod: but many other children fell victim to the King's insane jealousy.
In spirit, theology and secular tradition, this is the season of childhood and family. Dickens captured this in A Christmas Carol when Scrooge is shown the Cratchits' meagre feast by the Ghost of Christmas Present. 'God Bless us every one!' cries Tiny Tim. 'He sat very close to his father's side, upon his little stool. Bob held his withered little hand in his, as if he loved the child and wished to keep him by his side, and dreaded that he might be taken from him.'
Such scenes from another age trigger gratitude that the lot of the child is no longer so precarious. Yet we should beware lest we cross the threshold that separates gratitude from smugness. In February, the publication of 'An Overview of Child Well-being in rich countries' by Unicef showed — shockingly — that, judged by a variety of indicators connected with health, happiness and welfare, Britain is the worst place in the developed world for children to live. lain Duncan Smith's heroic work on our 'Broken Society' has filled in the gaps, laying bare an appalling social landscape of deprivation, addiction, crime, failed relationships and (worst of all) hopelessness.
The welfare system continues to conspire against the traditional family, offering perverse incentives for couples with children to live apart. As Fraser Nelson reveals today, it is indigenous Britons, rather than newcomers, who are most affected. If migrants are removed from the calculation, this will be the first year since records began in which most children were born outside wedlock.
The survival of the infant Jesus depended upon the love and determination of Mary and Joseph. In 'The House of Christmas', Chesterton showed that he grasped the formidable power of this tiny social unit: 'The crazy stable close at hand,/ With shaking timber and shifting sand,/ Grew a stronger thing to abide and stand/ Than the square stones of Rome.' That strength is draining fast from our society.
The government's response is the ten-year 'Children's Plan' which has been launched by Ed Balls, the Children, Schools and Families Secretary. Mr Balls is a talented minister and is right to approach these questions in a spirit of urgency.
Yet, when such policies are announced, it is wise to step back and ask who is truly responsible for the welfare of children — and to remember the sage warning of Sir Keith Joseph that 'the very first words that a British baby is apt to be taught to utter are that "the government should do something about it".' The state can never be father and mother to the young. The family should not be nationalised.
Our collective instinct now is also to blame children's problems upon external factors: television, the internet and computer games. All three doubtless have the capacity to deaden the soul, but none is intrinsically wicked. It is the cultural context in which they flourish that counts. Children who are neglected by their parents tend to spend too many hours with their Gameboy or surfing the web aimlessly (rather than in search of knowledge).
Much worse, we have created a value structure in which the interests of children do not have automatic priority over the ambitions of parents. It used to be said that, on becoming a parent, a person ceased to be the picture and became the frame. Sadly, that metaphor no longer characterises modern parenthood.
All too many men and women now assume that, once a child is born and pronounced healthy, the pursuit of career and selfish fulfilment can be resumed. It is often true that both parents work because they have to. But it is not universally so. The very fact that we now speak so glibly about 'work-life balance' and 'quality time' with our children — expecting a pat on the back for doing so — shows how far we have drifted.
Better 'child care' is hailed as the answer to everything. Politicians vie for votes with ever more bounteous promises: from April 2008, all town halls will have a legal obligation to offer 'sufficient child care'. The government wants all primary schools to provide facilities between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. Thus will these public institutions of learning become a network of glorified crèches.
Of course, for those who have to work to make ends meet, child-care provision is essential. But it should be treated as a second-best necessity rather than a cause for celebration. There is a growing body of research that demonstrates the adverse consequences for children — emotional and educational — who spend too many hours a week away from their parents and their home. The pioneer in this field is the controversial Professor Jay Belsky of Birkbeck College, London. But more familiar experts on childhood, such as Dr Penelope Leach, are reaching similar conclusions. Their findings do not sit easily with modern liberal values. But parenthood is not designed to suit the lifestyle preferences of the adult. It is a sacred, lifelong obligation, as well as an unparalleled blessing.
Christmas is a time of joy and celebration, but it should also be a time of reflection. The image of the Nativity — so beautifully described by Cardinal Cormac MurphyO'Connor on page 22 — is more than a luminous devotional tableau. It should also be a spur to individual conscience — and a warning to every generation that the neglect of children comes in many forms.
Previous page
