A Century in Advertising - Part 13

A Century in Advertising - Part 13

My look at some of the advertisements and products of yesteryear. Some weird and whacky, some surprisingly still around today. Here are their stories.

1936 - Heinz

Paying homage to the League of Nations might not have been the smartest marketing move, but Heinz actually supported the British war effort when war broke out, long before America officially joined the war.

The website notes that:

"Since 1926, Heinz Spaghetti has been enjoyed, more often than not on toast, by many different generations of Britons. It is made from Durum wheat pasta and juicy, tomato sauce."

The H. J. Heinz Company, or Heinz, is an American food processing company with world headquarters in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. It was founded by Henry John Heinz in 1869. A British subsidiary was established to manage Heinz imports from America in 1886.

Between 1919 and 1927, Heinz UK sales quadrupled. A 22 acre factory site was opened in Harlesden, London in 1925. It increased the total number of employees at Heinz UK from 500 to 1,000. The larger factory allowed Heinz to mass produce, and pass on the economies of scale to the consumer. By 1935 the site covered 40 acres and was one of the largest and up-to-date factories in England.

In 1939, Howard Heinz, the company president, donated £20,000 (£1.2 million) to buy aircraft for the British war effort. He also invited his staff to send their children to America for the duration of the war at the company’s expense.

1937 - Ironized Yeast

As Tamara Abraham noted, the prediliction for "skinny" women did not exist back in the 1930s:

"These ads, published in magazines and newspapers from the Thirties to the Sixties show how weight gain was aspired to then as earnestly as we today aspire to weight loss. Demonstrating an attitude that could not be more far removed from the current vogue for size zero, the ads promote supplements promising speedy weight gain for a sexier body."

"One, promising 'an easy way to add 5-15lb' even features a man, gazing at a reclining woman. The text alongside reads: 'A skinny woman hasn't a chance. I wish I could gain flesh.'"

Ironized yeast was targeted at skinny women who wanted to put on weight. It was claimed that the Ironized Yeast tablet would help women put on 10 to 25 pounds in only a few weeks. A picture of a smiling curvy woman is juxtaposed here against a cartoon slimmer woman, presenting the former as the ideal.

Ironized yeast was actually known as Saccharomyces cerevisiae, or brewer's yeast, and was frequently used as a B-vitamin supplement for people following a strict vegan diet. It provides a spectrum of nutritional compounds and has a reputation for facilitating weight gain. But "brewer's yeast" would hardly sell as a weight supplement so it was rebranded!

1938 - Parker Pen

The Parker Pen Company is a manufacturer of luxury pens, founded in 1888 by George Safford Parker in Janesville, Wisconsin, United States.

 From the 1920s to the 1960s, before the development of the ballpoint pen, Parker was either number one or number two in worldwide writing instrument sales. In 1931 Parker created Quink (quick drying ink), which eliminated the need for blotting. In 1941 the company developed the most widely used model of fountain pen in history (over $400 million worth of sales in its 30-year history), the Parker 51.

With commercial competition increasing upon the Parker jotter's classic metal ink refill cartridge design from low cost generic copies produced in China, as Parker's unique design patent for the cartridge expired, Parker's sales began to be drastically adversely affected.

In 2011 the Parker factory at Newhaven, East Sussex, England, was closed, and its production transferred to Nantes, France

The following month, Newell Rubbermaid Inc. announced that the factory in Janesville, Wisconsin, was also to close the remaining operation there producing Parker Pens (which eliminated a further 153 manufacturing jobs)

Parker also altered its traditional product warranty on its high end pens, changing the former lifetime guarantee to a two-year warranty limitation.

It is small wonder that it has ended as a gift "throwaway" item by Michael Parkinson for a "too good to be true" life insurance, as if it still somehow has that luxury edge, when only the very old still set store by ink fountain pens. As a commentator said: "It's such a sad descent, it really and truly is."

But my favourite comment is this:

"Parker pens are so commonplace that they now have less value financially, morally and existentially than anything else in the world. A Parker pen is quite significantly inferior to a cheap supermarket biro that runs out of ink after writing five words and even writing with a finger on a dusty surface is a more pleasant experience than a Parker pen. Nothing on earth is more insipidly anomic than a Parker pen. The only good reason I can think of for offering them to life insurance clients is that they prepare an individual for the eternal monotony of death"

References
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/savings/9266217/Martin-Lewis-the-over-50s-plans-with-a-hitch.html

Why the "Conscience" Opt Out is mistaken

"Non-whites who reside in America should be expected to conduct themselves according to Christian principles and must recognize that race mixing is definitely wrong and out of the question. It will be a privilege to live under the authority of a compassionate White Christian government." (Knights of the KKK)

Recently Edgar Ray Killen, a former Ku Klux Klan leader who was convicted for the 1964 “Mississippi Burning” killings of three civil rights workers, has died in prison at the age of 92. He saw interracial marriage as a genocidal attack on the white race, and justified his segregational position on the basis of his Baptist faith (he was actually a part-time preacher).

Likewise, the South African regime drew on Dutch Calvinish to justify apartheid and all the discrimination that involved. As one blog notes:

“Deeply Calvinistic, these people were also deeply entrenched in an Old Testament biased Dominionism. Viewing themselves as Israelites in a hostile land, chosen by God, and defining the Kingdom in terms of cultural purification and advancement, over time they moved from not merely seeking to dominate the 'lesser' races but found it needful to limit contact altogether.”

To my mind, to allow any religious person to opt out and discriminate against another on grounds of sex seems as bad as discrimination on the grounds of race.

No one is saying that those who want a “conscience” clause will resort to violence, but the notion that discrimination can come from “Christian principles” is nothing new.

It is right that religious organisations should have freedom to opt out as an organisation, but not right that discrimination should extend beyond the confines of that religious organisation to civil marriage.

Here are a few comments worth reading:

Rev Graeme Halls, Superintendent Minister of the Jersey Methodist Church

“What can happen is that there are those who because of ‘their conscience’ find that engagement with people in same sex marriage or even relationships difficult. The ‘cake baker and b@b hotelier’ are given as examples.”

“We cannot live in a world that allows people to discriminate against others. This turns these people into victims, which is entirely wrong, we cannot condone this sort of behaviour. We cannot discriminate on the basis of colour, or gender, or race or culture. It is also the case that well funded fundamentalist groups are very happy to back such people as their examples. It is not the role of a cake baker to decide who they will and will not bake a cake for. It reminds me of the 1950’s where those who let out rooms in UK put notices in their windows saying ‘no blacks’. We cannot allow this to happen in this case.”

“This cannot be allowed to skew the debate about a law that seeks to treat all equally, and for society to respect those who live within the law.”

V. Tanner Davy, Honorary C.E.O, Liberate Jersey

We only have to look back a lifetime, just one lifetime, to see elderly and disabled people behind bars in asylums, gay people behind bars in prison, women imprisoned in marriages with slim means to divorce, black and Asian people barred from pubs and clubs, to know what happens to minorities without the support of governments. Britain in the 1950s and 1960s was no idyll for those from a minority. Jersey is not perfect now and there is still work to do but I know what era I prefer to live in. Minorities need robust anti-discrimination law that is not watered down by clauses that allow select groups to opt-out of their obligation not to discriminate in the workplace.

Senator Philip Ozouf:

“The Jersey Law as proposed does not interfere with the established arrangements for religions or churches. Religious organisations will not be required or compelled to marry same-sex couples. As around the world, if the great religions and faiths of the world do not want marriage Equality within their rules they are not compelled to have it. If some, such as Quakers or Methodists and other governing bodies wished to allow it, they could. And rightly so. They are opt-in arrangements.”

“Nowhere in the world, however, has an opt-out for the arrangements for Civil Marriages.”

“The concept of this law is to provide fairness and equity within our society for anyone wishing to get married. It would be somewhat ironic at best if a clause were included to exclude some elements of equity, and allow situations where people can still discriminate against same sex couples.”

“In essence, legislating discrimination of a group into an equality law!”

“If the States of Jersey passes a law to permit something or to prevent something else i.e. the discrimination of men, women, people of colour, age or whatever, then there cannot be subordinate rights of somebody else to decline to apply that law on the basis of religious, political or philosophical beliefs.”

The Revised Jersey Marriage law and Quakers

The Revised Jersey Marriage law and Quakers

“Friends regard marriage as both a civil contract and a religious commitment.”

"The members of the Quakers Friends Society, and those who profess the Jewish religion, will be able to contract and celebrate marriage according to their customs provided that [one of the spouses is] 26 of the said society or religion respectively ; provided that the notice of marriage has been given to the Superintendent and that he has granted the certificate or license required by that Act. The license or certificate shall be delivered to the Recorder of the Society of Friends, or to the Secretary of the Synagogue of the Jews, which Recorder and Secretary will ensure, either whether or not they were present at the wedding, that their respective uses were duly observed; they will register the marriage in duplicate and without delay in two "Registers of Marriage, "which will be provided for this purpose; they will sign the two inscriptions, and observe the other formalities required by Article 27." (LOI (1842) SUR L’ETAT CIVIL)

The proposed amendment to existing law appears to alter matters as follows, in that the following, and only the following, can celebrate a marriage. New Article 6 sets out who can solemnize a marriage in Jersey:

1. Superintendent Registrar and Deputy Superintendent Registrars: Must take Oath in Royal Court before solemnizing marriage

2. Authorized civil celebrant: Must take Oath in Royal Court before solemnizing marriage

3. Authorized religious official: No requirement to take Oath in Royal court, as they have an Oath to their religious authority

4. Anglican incumbent: No Oath in Royal Court

So where exactly do Quaker Weddings stand?

Robin Beth Schaer describes a Quaker wedding thus:

“Quakers, members of the Religious Society of Friends, marry without a lot of fanfare. Often referred to as the silent ceremony, Quaker weddings differ from the traditional Protestant ceremony in four significant ways: there is no officiant; no giving away of the bride; a wedding certificate is signed; and there is a long period of silent, open worship after which those attending may speak on the couple's behalf.”

And yet for the purposes of Jersey law, they are recognised as a religion, indeed as a church. Current practice, as described in 2011 is as follows:

Clerk for Jersey Quakers: “We have a registry officer and you can be married in the Quaker Meeting House. It is not very often that we hold marriages but yes you can be. At the most recent one that we had in the Quaker Meeting House, the registrar also attended as well as our Quaker registrar and there was a small part of it, just very small, slightly on the side, that was conducted and that part was the registrar.”

So where do they fit? They are not civil celebrants, and yet how can they be “Authorized religious official: No requirement to take Oath in Royal court, as they have an Oath to their religious authority”? Quakers, it may have escaped notice of those drawing up the law, do not ever take oaths!

But Quakers have no hierarchical system of religious authority in people, although there is the framework of Quaker Frame and Practice:

“Quaker marriage is not an alternative form of marriage available to the general public, but is for members and those who, whilst not being in formal membership, are in unity with its religious nature and witness. Usually, however, one or both of the parties being married will be members or they will be otherwise associated with the Society.”

Equally, Quaker marriages are seen not as a merely civil contract but as a religious act.

One assumes that the situation can continue as it stands, but it would be nice for there to be some clarity.

Jersey and Citizenship - Part 1

There was a most useful clarification on British citizenship in a debate in the States recently by HM Attorney General - Robert James MacRae QC. It is I think worth reprinting in its entireity.

A Most Useful Clarification
Mr. R.J. MacRae, H.M. Attorney General:

Before we rose last night, you kindly gave me the chance to consider overnight the position in relation to Constables and invited me to consider what conclusions I would offer to the Royal Court in circumstances where a non-British person was elected as Constable.

Any conclusions of the Attorney to the Court, were a non-British candidate to be elected as Constable, would of course be based on more meticulous research than that carried out to date. The question is of course as yet hypothetical. It is one thing to address the Assembly on a hypothetical question of law, another to present detailed submissions to the Court.

But, subject to that caveat, it is very probably the case that an aubain or alien could not hold public office at customary law. An aubain could not inherit property and one assumes that someone incapacitated at that very basic proprietary level where membership of the Parish Assembly depended upon land ownership would not have been eligible to occupy public office.

The very absence of case law may well be indicative of the position being so fundamentally accepted that it was never questioned or even articulated at any length. Public office, especially that which involved keeping the King’s peace, which the Constable was obliged to do and it is still contained in the oath, must have implied allegiance. After all, the Constable was an arm – bras – of the Royal Court – see Le Geyt, the 17th century Jersey lawyer - and the Court’s duty was ultimately to the King or Duke, it is of course the Royal Court.

The notion that someone with no affiliation to the kingdom or duchy might act in that capacity would have been repugnant at customary law. Of course in recent years the admission of non-British persons to the Honorary Police has made inroads into the assumption that might obviously historically have been made.

But before the customary law can be found to have altered various tests must be met as laid down by Routier, the 18th century Norman author, and in general terms unwritten law must have been altered by new introduction with the tacit agreement of the sovereign and the people as a result of new observance in departure from existing custom.

If I am correct in my understanding of the customary law position in relation to Constables, there is no instance in which an altered position or custom has been observed for a period of time, indeed there is no evidence of any instance to show that a new rule has been established with the tacit agreement of the sovereign and the people. The very uncertainty about the question perhaps militates against such tacit agreement having taken place.

The fact that British nationality has been taken without question as an incidence of membership of the States by Deputies when they were introduced in 1857 - Article 2 of the law in relation to them - and by Senators when they were introduced in 1948, suggests strongly that this was merely echoing what was taken to be the requirement in relation to the existing elected States Members who at that time of course were the Jurats and the Constables.

Therefore, my conclusions would be to the Royal Court that the threshold for any alteration in the customary law position has not been met and in other words I would most likely not move that a non-British candidate should be sworn in as Constable. Of course the court might take a different view, but those would be my conclusions in those circumstances.

Secondly, Senator Ozouf raised some questions before we adjourned last night in relation to nationality and citizenship.

The terms are often used interchangeably and indeed conflated but there is a general view that citizenship is a narrower concept, meaning legal status, in a country which confers a set of rights.

Nationality is a broader concept, usually denoting where someone is born, and can be acquired of course through inheritance from parents.

So, for example, a German person could acquire British citizenship, but no one would say that he or she had not retained their German nationality.

Of course in the U.K. (United Kingdom) there are at least 4 nationalities but only one form of citizenship, British. Having said that, to hold dual nationality or even simply non-British nationality does not necessarily, certainly in peace time, conflict with membership of this Assembly so long, of course, that the person in question was able to take the oath, which involves swearing allegiance to the Queen and her successors in the case of Deputies and Senators and to keep the King’s peace - the Queen’s peace - in the case of Constables.

Having said that, that leads indirectly to me considering whether or not there is any difficulty in the current arrangements, which do require Members of the Assembly to be British citizens from the perspective of the Discrimination Law or indeed the Human Rights Law.

In summary, there is no difficulty from either perspective.

The Discrimination Law prohibits direct and indirect discrimination because of inter alia a person’s race and race, for this purpose, includes a person’s nationality and national origin. But the law only applies to discrimination in relation to particular acts as set out in parts 3 to 6 of the law. None of those acts would appear to stretch to restrictions on a person’s ability to stand as a candidate for election.

From a European Convention on Human Rights perspective, the most relevant right is Article 3 of the First Protocol to the E.C.H.R. (European Convention on Human Rights), which provides that the high contracting parties undertake to hold free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot under conditions that will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the Legislature.

Limitations on that right are permitted providing that they do not impair the very essence of the rights or deprive them of their effectiveness and provided they are imposed in pursuit of and proportionate to some legitimate aim.

A state is afforded a considerable margin of appreciation by the European Court in determining what is proportionate. The relevant European case law reflects that restrictions on eligibility to be a candidate may amount to a limitation on rights, however the European Court has accepted that stricter restrictions can be placed on the right to be a candidate than on the right to vote and accordingly the Jersey position would be E.C.H.R. compliant.

The leading case involves a Latvian and I do not propose to read from the judgment, but in particular interest for our purposes is the 2009 U.K. Supreme Court case, which considered a similar restriction on the right to stand for a candidate in Sark. In that case the Supreme Court held that a restriction on eligibility to stand for election in Sark, so that only British, Irish or some Commonwealth citizens who are resident could stand for election was compatible with the European Convention.

Interestingly, the Supreme Court noted in its reasoning that the evidence, not just in the previous European case, but also from various websites, was that almost all members of the Council of Europe have a nationality requirement on eligibility to stand for election to their Legislatures.

Accordingly, from the E.C.H.R. perspective, the arguments that were accepted by the U.K. Supreme Court in the Barclays case - the Sark case - apply with equal force to the position in Jersey and the restriction of the right to stand for election to British citizens would accordingly be lawful and not infringe the E.C.H.R.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf: 

I know, but I am asking a question, is there something that is Jersey citizenship that would not require a British passport? That is my question.

Deputy R. Labey of St. Helier:

I wondered if the Attorney could assist with letting us know if the term “alien” is defined in law, for example if somebody had been resident in Jersey for over 10 years, paying income tax, had a social security card, on the electoral roll, paying rates, but were not a British national, would they be classed as an alien?

The Attorney General:

Dealing with the first question, if I may, there is no such concept as Jersey citizenship. This was something that was touched on in the Barclays case - the Sark case - in 2009 by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court held that, as the Bailiwick of Guernsey does not have a separate nationality, the Supreme Court accepted that imposing a nationality requirement based on the U.K. concept of citizenship and who or is not an alien under that law, as extended to our Islands, was justifiable. 

In relation to the position of aubain, I can reassure Deputy Labey that of course the rules against them holding land and the like have been abolished long ago, but the position remains that someone can remain a non-British citizen and thus accordingly an alien for a very long time, notwithstanding that one may contribute to the Island in other ways.

Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade:

Yes. It is just in relation to the wider context of whether or not specifically related to Deputies and Senators the British nationality requirement relates only to being sworn-in, so somebody could stand for election, get their nomination paper signed, as a non-British citizen be successfully elected, and then the problem would only arise after the people have given their verdict, so is that currently the case in this situation, and obviously for Connétables as well?

The Attorney General:

Under Article 7 of the States of Jersey Law, a person is not qualified for election unless they are a British citizen and they become disqualified if they cease to be a British citizen. I hope that answers the question.

The Church of England in Society

Dr Cartright: Can I have a word about a proposal I worked out before we were transferred to this department?
Jim Hacker: - And you are?
Dr Cartright: - I am... what?
Jim Hacker: - Yes, you are what?
Dr Cartright: - What?
Jim Hacker: - What?
Dr Cartright: - I am Dr Cartwright.
Jim Hacker: If I may put it another way, what are you?
Dr Cartright: I'm C of E.
Bernard: The Minister means, what function do you perform in the department?
- ( Yes Minister)

Linda Woodhead is Professor of Sociology of Religion at Lancaster University. She is the co-author of “That Was the Church That Was: How the Church of England Lost the English People.”

In looking at the Church of Denmark, she notes that “two-thirds of Danish babies baptised”, although in fact recent statistics show numbers have been dropping rapidly since their book was published.

But this is the passage I want to look at this

“Compare that with England where well under a third of the population identify as Church of England and just 1 in 10 babies are baptised. The only similarity between the two is a very low rate of Sunday churchgoing: around 1% of the population. But for these societal rather than congregational churches, Sunday attendance has never been as important as occasional offices.”

By a “societal church”, she means a church which forms part of the fabric of society. It is where many people go to get baptised, married or buried, and in Denmark and England, it is a national church, so that membership has been seen as almost a default position, as seen in the reference in “Yes Minister” opening this article, in Dr Cartright's reply.

But if people are declining to make use of occasional offices, such as baptism of a child, and either not doing it any more, does this signify a decline in belief or a change in belief? And it what sense might those who used to make use of occasional offices actually belonged to the Church in any sense as Christians, that is, followers of Christ. Is it more than the church has lost the monopoly on what many regarded primarily as just a naming ceremony?

This is a question worth asking, because the decline in baptism may represent a decline in belief, or rather than beliefs shaped around both folk religion and the need for naming ceremonies now find other sources of inspiration in which a christening is not so important.

So what we must surely do, and what the book fails to do, is to explore the state of belief in baptism among occasional users back in the late 1970s, for example, and here I am drawing upon Neil Dixon’s book “Troubled Waters”, published in 1979. It is one of the few books which actually explores what people believe in those cases.

He comments that:

“The Church has always assumed that parents who presented their children were in fact Christians. The nature of modern society, however, raises serious doubts about this assumption. According to Geoffrey Wainright, the empirical fact is that there are at the moment millions of baptized persons, baptized years ago in infancy, who have not the faintest existential notion of the worship, fellowship, service and mission involved in the Christian life; and the denominations of today add to their future number by continuing to baptize as infants people who stand perhaps even less chance of coming to personal commitment.'”

And he notes that the use of an “occasional office” might not actually be a good indicator of involvement in the Church, even though that enters the figures. As a strategy for a “societal church”, baptism had evidently led to a situation where whatever else it denotes, it does not denote much in the way of practicing Christianity, and hence the legacy for the future is poor.

“Though the demand for Christian baptism is gradually declining, it is still true that every year a large number of parents present their children for baptism and that the number of baptized children who subsequently lapse is considerable."

"In 1956, there were 602 baptisms in the Church of England per thousand live births, and though there is no means of knowing how many of their parents were then actively involved in the Church or how many of the babies then baptized are now themselves practising Christians, it is obvious enough that nowhere near 60 per cent of Britain's 22 or 23-year-olds are still actively involved with the Church of England. Ten per cent would be a more than optimistic estimate."

"If baptism is the beginning of the Christian life, it seems that it is also, for the great majority of the baptized, the last stage of involvement with the Church.”

And this was written in 1979, although he quotes Alec Vidler in 1940 saying that "“as a matter of course we baptize children who are born into households which even the most brazen latitudinarian would hesitate to call Christian”. This a a long term matter.

So what reasons did people have for having babies baptised? This book actually suggests that many people have a “vestigial sense of belonging to the Church”

Dixon notes that:

“In these cases there tends to be a strong conviction that the administration of baptism is not merely desirable but essential. It is `the right thing to do' to have the baby baptized. This conviction is surely no less real because many parents cannot offer any explanation for it.”

“But sometimes discussion reveals that the vestigial belief and sense of belonging are not the parents' but the grandparents' or those of other influential relations or friends. In such instances parents who are not themselves convinced of the necessity of baptism may request it in order to keep the peace within their family or circle of friends. Superstition may also lead non-practising Christians to request a child's baptism.”

And he cites some examples from real life cases by way of illustration, and notes that: “most ministers have encountered such superstition in one form or another, though many church-members may not be aware how widespread it is. The following quotations are a sample of superstitious statements made to ministers within the last four or five years:”

“In our family we believe in having them christened as soon as possible. They thrive better afterwards.”
“The hole in the head closes up when they're 'done'.”
“If they've been christened, they're not as likely to get measles. “
“My wife can't use the carving knife until the baby's been christened.”
“If you won't christen it, it'll never be able to see its grandma. She won't let it into her house until it's been done; and she won't come to our house either.”

And in conclusion he notes that:

“Here we have a superstitious desire to fend off measles, to close up the imagined hole in the head, or to allow mother and child to visit grandmother without fear of calamitous consequences is, it need hardly be said, totally irreconcilable with the Christian understanding of baptism. “

This was 1979, and as he notes, such notions, and other of the same kind, were fairly common among those using “occasional officers”. So part of the decline may be a decline in folk-religious beliefs like those note, and the passing away of the grandmother's generation.

Sociologically, baptism functioned also as a “naming ceremony”, and it was this function which was probably most significant for many people. Most cultures have ceremonies around birth, marriage and death.

Naming ceremonies have not gone away, but they have now, as with funerals, also become ceremonies which do not require the church participation. As one site notes:

“If, like a growing number of parents, you would like to celebrate the birth of your child but have decided against a christening, alternatives such as a church blessing, naming ceremony or simple ‘naming day’ are becoming increasingly popular.”

“Anyone you choose can lead the naming ceremony! A grandparent, close family member or friend or even yourself! Alternatively you can invite a professional celebrant to lead the proceedings.”

And it gives an example:

“My partner Martin and I wanted to celebrate the arrival of our daughter, Cora, into the world. As we're not married it seemed hypocritical to go through a religious service in a church, so we decided to have a baby-naming day at home." A naming day is an informal occasion, gathering friends and family together to celebrate the birth and naming of your child.

What has happened is that the “occasional office” of baptism of a baby, which might only have had vestigial Christian significance, but which functioned far more critically as a naming ceremony has lost the need for a church setting and ritual. The church has simply lost its monopoly.

Indeed, the popularity of christening children has plummeted in recent years, whilst naming ceremonies are starting to become far more common.

One of the significant differences between a christening and a naming ceremony is that the former uses a liturgical form which lays out promises and commitments to those attending to commit to Christianity.

Indeed, the change from the old prayer book version, with archaisms, in which a mass of words descended on those present, to modern forms of service, actually caused some complaints because the degree of commitment in the three promises was spelt out with brevity and clarity.

We live in an age now which is largely devoid of commitment, so that naming ceremonies exist which remove any commitments or simply transform them into general promises to care for the child, which should be there anyway, declared or not. Any element of the sacred has long departed.

Take this example:

“Baby naming ceremonies are designed with couples to reflect their desires and needs whilst focusing on the importance of the child as an individual in their own right whose individual spirit and integrity should never be manipulated but rather their uniqueness fostered and appreciated in their own right.”

What remains in this description, when the ceremony has been stripped on any sacred elements, is a feel good ceremony of froth and bland cliché.

Is it any wonder that modern varieties of paganism are growing too, because they provide something more substantial and solid in the way of ritual, and something less fluffy. Modern pagan naming ceremonies focus on bringing the sacred into the naming ceremony, and give it a gravitas and depth that the non-religious DIY ceremony could never have - in calling on the gods to bless a child. They open up to the transcendent.

A similar transition is happening at the end of life, where funerals are often taken by a “celebrant”, often from the funeral director, and have no Christian trappings. A funeral becomes a “celebration of a life”, and while is positive, the traditional trappings of the Christian funeral service have been largely removed.

This is not just the explicit Christian elements removed, but those elements which chime with the death-averse culture in which we find ourselves which speak of mortality, of how anyone can be cut down, of how fragile and relatively short life is, and how we turn to dust. This is a reminder of mortality, and that is now a message silenced and unheard.

All is light, and the dark side of death is swept aside as much as possible. In celebrating a life, we can forget that "sunset touch" of mortality which pervaded the Christian funeral services.

So to return to the book, in which Linda Woodhead makes this distinction on kinds of church where she talks of the shift “from ‘societal’ towards ‘congregational’. The difference is that societal Churches go out into society; congregational ones try to bring society into church. Historically, the Church "of England" has always been a bit of both, but its centre of gravity has been societal.”

Yet as can be seen from real-life examples, a societal church is providing functions which people want – naming ceremonies – with rituals and commitments which they have in the past accepted for the sake of the naming ceremony for a variety of reasons, but to which they paid historically little more than lip service.

It is unclear what Linda Woodhead wants – does she want a return to such a situation? Increasingly those who bring children to be baptised are more likely to be those wanting to make a commitment, and who may be or may become practising Christians.

The Church has been moving in a variety of ways to accommodate the pressures of modern life, realising that an every Sunday commitment is not always possible with young children, and that monthly services, geared to both parents and children, may be a better way forwards. The traditional “Sunday school” has been replaced with “Messy Church”. Here surely is the future, a smaller Church, but more committed.

This will not be a “societal church”, but was that really a good thing? The idea of a Christian culture which permeated society was always a bit of a myth. Choice about churchgoing, or not, came from the seeds of the enlightenment, and not from within the church. People used the occasional offices of the Church because they were part of the culture, but that was ever only tangentially related to Christianity. The value of tolerance was primarily an enlightenment value.

Back in 1979, when Neil Dixon was writing his book, as he notes, it was a common and long standing attitude that one could “be a Christian without going to church”.

As he notes, many people believed at that time “that to be a Christian is to be a decent sort of person, obeying the law of the land (within reason), giving other people an occasional helping hand, and (though this is desirable rather than essential) believing in God. But going to church, reading the Bible or talking about Jesus Christ are hobbies for those who like doing such things. They are not necessary. One can easily be a Christian without them.”

The decline of the “societal church” has also led to decay in that belief, so that people no longer self-identify as Christians in purely this sense. Is that such a bad thing?

The Intrepid Fox

My thanks to Katalin for this photo which inspired the poem.

“It was the task of Mr. Fox,” noted John Russell, one of his ideological successors, “to vindicate, with partial success, but with brilliant ability, the cause of freedom and the interests of mankind. He resisted the mad perseverance of Lord North in the project of subduing America. He opposed the war undertaken by Mr. Pitt against France, as unnecessary and unjust. He proved himself at all times the friend of religious liberty, and endeavoured to free both the Protestant and Roman Catholic dissenter from disabilities on account of their religious faith. He denounced the slave trade. He supported at all times a reform of the House of Commons.”

The Intrepid Fox

Charles James Fox, champion of the free

Politician, Maverick and Whig

A young man, once on gambling spree

Later led Parliament in a merry jig

Ended Slavery, and set the captives free

Supported America’s freedom fight

And fought for all kinds of liberty

And against injustice with all might

The Intrepid Fox, pub named after him

The man who liked to sup and think

But finally closed, the lights went dim

On two hundred years of serving drink

Charles James Fox, let we forget

In London Town, seen still yet

A Guidebook to St John in the Oaks Jersey – Part 6

This guidebook is no longer available from the church, so here is a transcription over the next few weeks. Photos are my own

A Guidebook to St John in the Oaks Jersey – Part 6

10. The Organs

Church records show that an organ, built by Mr. George Fentum of Beresford Street, Jersey, was installed in the church in 1850, although its exact location is uncertain. It was recorded in 1858 that the organ was tuned. By 1880, this organ was reported to be worn-out and beyond repair, the woodwork being worm-eaten, the leather perished and the pipes only fit to be sold as scrap metal.

For the next half-century, its place was taken by a wheezy harmonium. In 1935, the church was wired for electricity and in 1938 a Hammond Electronic organ was installed. This instrument survived at St. John until 1968 but then lived out the remainder of its useful life in another church in the Island.

The present organ was built in 1884 by Eustace Ingram of London and Edinburgh and was originally installed in Great Union Road Methodist Church in St. Helier. The only other locally-installed organ by this builder (so far as can be ascertained) was the original pipe organ in St. Lawrence Church, which itself was replaced in 1965. The 1884 instrument (of some 14 stops) was hand-blown, but in 1935, an electric blower was installed.

In 1938, a more extensive renovation was undertaken by James Ivemey and Cooper, including a new pedal board with pneumatic action, three additional stops and a re-ordering of the console. This, as now, remained on the right-hand-side of the organ case.

In 1967-1968, on the closure of the Great Union Road Methodist Church, the organ was bought for £250 and placed in its present position, a position which failed to take into account the problems of the organist's liaison with the choir. The present day insurance value of the organ stands at some £210,000.

Nothing was done to the organ when it was installed in 1968, and consequently, by 1983, it was obvious that extensive renovation was a matter of priority to preserve the instrument. An examination of the bellows showed that they were quite literally fit to burst. These had to be completely re-leathered at considerable cost. A new pedal board was fitted but, unfortunately, a plan to electrify the pedal action had to be shelved because of the high cost, although it remained a priority for the overall improvement of the organ.

Tonally, the organ had always lacked sparkle and to remedy this, the Vox Celeste and Oboe were removed on the Swell to make way for a Fifteenth 2 ft. and a Larigot 1 1/3 ft.

By 1991, the pedal pneumatic action had become increasingly unreliable, the leather work showing the ravages of time and in many instances the pneumatic motors were far beyond repair and needed complete renewal. The conversion of the pedal action to electro-pneumatic formed an important part in the renovation completed in 1992-1993. A Flute 4 ft. was added to the pedal, pipe-work extended up from the 16 ft. and 8 ft. stops, along with three electronically generated pedal reeds (at 16 ft., 8 ft. and 4 ft.), and Flues at 32 ft. and 16 ft. The necessary electronic circuitry, together with a large speaker measuring some 4 ft. high by 2 ft. square, were placed underneath the organ close to the blower motor.

These additions have improved the overall tonal qualities of the organ beyond measure. The pedal organ now speaks independently of the manuals, when required, and the console has been altered slightly to accommodate six new stop knobs.

The present specification is as follows:-

The church also possesses a Miller digital organ of some 20 stops. The instrument, which was given to the Church in memory of a former churchwarden and his wife, originally dates from about 1965 but has recently been completely rebuilt with digital circuitry.

The console is behind the choir stalls on the South side of the chancel, with two large speakers concealed behind a screen in the arch over the central crossing.

11. Kneelers and Pew Cushions

The Parish Church is a truly beautiful building and at the dawn of this new millennium a project is underway to produce new furnishings which will further contribute to the aesthetic attractiveness of this special place.

12. The Churchyard

Sometime during the first half of the 19th Century, the churchyard was tidied up and some granite grave markers were built into the West boundary wall. Some old marker stones from the churchyard were also incorporated into the Parish cemetery wall, when a new entrance was constructed in 1993 (Sir Billy Butlin is buried in the cemetery, which lies to the West of the Church within walking distance.).

The main gates of the Churchyard, with built-in poor box and Parish box (housing the official municipal notice board), stood originally on the corner, providing speedy access to Parish hall and public house!

At the foot of the steeple is the base of a wayside cross which came from Les Buttes, dated circa 15th century. A few metres further along the South wall are several large pebbles marked with initials, which served as home-made memorial headstones. The churchyard trees include both a number of yews - the traditional churchyard tree, and several oaks – once again bringing life to our historical name of St John in the Oaks.

13. Conclusion

We trust that you have enjoyed reading the history of our Parish Church and invite you to find out more about our life by visiting us on the World Wide Web at www.stjohnschurch.org.je

This account of St John's Church, by its very nature, is not exhaustive and the possibility is that it is not free from errors. Nevertheless, we hope that your final impressions will be those of the Psalmist, who wrote about the Temple in Jerusalem: "How lovely is your dwelling place, O Lord Almighty!... blessed is the man who trusts in you. (Psalm 84).

St John, June 2000

A Celtic blessing on setting forth

May the road rise to meet you,

May the wind always be at your back,

May the sun shine warm upon your face,

The rains fall soft upon your fields;

And, until we meet again, may

God hold you in the palm of His hand.

The Millennium Resolution:

Let there be respect for the earth,

peace for its people,

love in our lives,

delight in the good,

forgiveness for past wrongs

and from now on, a new start.

Acknowledgements

We are most grateful to Rev. Michael G. St. J. Nicolle B. A. for much of the historical research that went into the production of this booklet. We also wish to thank Mr. Roger Hibbeard of Rose Deep, St. John, for his invaluable assistance in the typesetting and editing. Photographs by Tony Bellows.

And so to bed...

Another selection of quotes taken from my end of day Facebook posts, but with added pictures of authors.

And so to bed... quote for tonight is from Edith Lovejoy Pierce:

We will open the book. Its pages are blank. We are going to put words on them ourselves. The book is called Opportunity and its first chapter is New Year's Day.

And so to bed... quote for tonight is from Rollo May:

We define religion as the assumption that life has meaning. Religion, or lack of it, is shown not in some intellectual or verbal formulations but in one's total orientation to life. Religion is whatever the individual takes to be his ultimate concern. One's religious attitude is to be found at that point where he has a conviction that there are values in human existence worth living and dying for.

And so to bed... quote for tonight is from Jostein Gaarder:

I sat thinking how terribly sad it was that people are made in such a way that they get used to something as incredible as living. One day we suddenly take the fact that we exist for granted - and then, yes, then we don’t think about it anymore until we are about to leave the world again.

And so to bed... quote for tonight is from Carl von Clausewitz:

If the mind is to emerge unscathed from this relentless struggle with the unforeseen, two qualities are indispensable: first, an intellect that, even in the darkest hour, retains some glimmerings of the inner light which leads to truth; and second, the courage to follow this faint light wherever it may lead.

And so to bed... quote for tonight is from Edward Carpenter:

The Dryads in the aspen branches wave
Their trembling fingers, and young Hyacinth
Droops earthward once more wounded by his lover.
But none resume their ancient human form.
The rocks, the trees, the flowers, the loving animals,
The sea, the heavenly winds,
The human form that chained within them all
Pleads for deliverance

And so to bed... quote for tonight is from D. Simone:

May Light always surround you;
Hope kindle and rebound you.
May your Hurts turn to Healing;
Your Heart embrace Feeling.
May Wounds become Wisdom;
Every Kindness a Prism.
May Laughter infect you;
Your Passion resurrect you.
May Goodness inspire
your Deepest Desires.
Through all that you Reach For,
May your arms Never Tire.

Card Sharps in Jersey

The Telegraph reported that:

“Since last Saturday [13 January 2018], all surcharges for paying via a credit or debit card were banned. The ban applies to all payments for any goods and services, but such charges were particularly common in the travel industry - you’d find them on the payment pages for everything from airport parking to airline booking sites and package holiday remittances, often adding two per cent or more to the cost of paying with particular cards.”

“The change - required by an EU directive - was brought in as an attempt to reduce prices for consumers and prevent companies from profiteering and penalising those who wished to pay by card.”

“There are one or two complications - you can still be charged a general booking or administration fee, but it mustn’t be linked to the way you are making your payment”

I can think of three areas where charges apply. When you pay in the car park by Castle Quay, there is an extra charge if you pay by card, which does not apply if you pay by cash. And if you choose to pay your rates bill electronically (online or at the Parish Hall), there is a fee for a credit card, but not one for a debit card. And if you pay tax by credit card, that gets an extra fee.

As far as I can see, all could fall foul of the EU directive, if it applied in Jersey because the charge applies based on payment method.

On the new EU directive in Jersey, Helier Clement, writing in the JEP, had some rather sharp comments:

“Sadly, but perhaps not surprisingly when it comes to one of that lot in the Big House, its implementation seems to have caught Murray Norton – he’s the assistant minister for Economic Development with special responsibility for consumer affairs – totally unawares. When asked if (or when) the ban would apply here, he indicated that not only would it not, but that he was unable to say when it might take effect.”

“Deputy Norton described the ban on imposing the surcharge as having complicated and varied rules and added that there was ‘more to these rules than meets the eye, which is why we want to consider all the options’. However, the Deputy did not explain why our elected representatives and/or their highly experienced (we are constantly reminded) hired help had not considered the options he referred during the months between the EU’s announcement of intention and the ban taking effect. It remains to be seen how long it takes avaricious businesses to realise that the rules don’t apply here and that, therefore, they can continue ripping off their customers at will.”

So what is happening elsewhere in the Crown Dependencies? I have not managed to find what Guernsey has decided to do, but the Isle of Man managed to get its act together last year:

Back in October 2017, he Office of Fair Trading issued this statement:

“The OFT has been in discussion with both the Treasury and the Cabinet Office regarding the implications of this change and the advisability that it should be extended to the island, as, if it is not extended, consumers on the island may be disadvantaged within the complex consumer landscape.”

OFT chairman Martyn Perkins admitted the timescale was ’tight’ to implement changes at the same time as the UK. But he said it was ’achievable’

And this year, they announced that “"ith effect from 13th January 2018, traders on the Island will not be able to apply additional surcharges for payments made by card. That’s the reminder from the Office of Fair Trading.”

And it was achievable!:

It was passed back in 2017:

“In December 2017 Tynwald approved the OFT’s proposal to follow the United Kingdom’s lead and introduce a prohibition on surcharges for consumer payments made by credit and debit card. This prohibition applies to any business trading with customers in the Island or anywhere in the European Economic Area (EEA).”

OFT Chairman Martyn Perkins MHK explained

“Whilst the UK regulations are not directly applicable to the Island, they will indirectly impact on local businesses trading into the UK or EEA and on local consumers buying goods online. This would leave a very confusing situation and risks our consumers being placed at a disadvantage compared to their UK counterparts. The OFT has made an Order applying similar regulations to the Island.”

Martyn Perkins concluded ‘A key role of the OFT is to protect consumers and it is important to close the loophole which would disadvantage local consumers.”

The Isle of Man is a model of how to pre-emptively investigate these matters, and decide what to do, and get on and get it done.

Martyn Perkins, bringing the legislation says: “The Office of Fair Trading believes it is important to give local consumers, and other consumers using Isle of Man services, the same level of protection as in the UK and the rest of Europe. This is about fairness and transparency”

In Jersey, all we have is dither: The Department was “considering a number of policy options at this time”.

They were considering those way back on 17th October on the Isle of Man:

“While it is envisaged the Office of Fair Trading will be seeking political approval to introduce measures providing a level of protection to consumers on the Island similar to that enjoyed by their counterparts in the United Kingdom, I must emphasise that the implications of doing so are still being actively considered.”

And the reason for the measure, which was passed, gave details of the implications, and options considered. Reason for the Measure:

“The scope of the regulations in the UK and the other EU Member States is such that many transactions undertaken by Manx traders or Manx consumers will already (without this Order) be subject to the prohibition on card surcharges. The Order closes a loophole which would allow, in some cases, local consumers to be placed in a disadvantaged position. It is anticipated that in general there will be an adjustment of prices to reflect the increased cost to traders to do business; and without this Order some local consumers will potentially face both the increased price and a card surcharge.”

And all we have in Jersey is dither, vagueness, and the sort of political blather which would make Jim Hacker MP of “Yes Minister” fame look competent.

Not much fairness or transparency!

The Past Year in Review: February 2017

The States BC
A light-hearted look at the perennial proposals to reform the States, this time by Andrew Lewis and Lyndon Farnham, a political Laurel and Hardy of States reform.

http://tonymusings.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-states-bc.html

The States, in their collective wisdom (not sure that is quite the right noun) decided on reform (but not Reform, which is a political party). This reform (with a small "r") was a muddled combination of Option B and Option C in the last election, which we may call Option BC.

Strange Associations
A look at the Dean of Jersey being set to retire on 28th February 2017, and why I associate this with Columbo and BlackAdder.

http://tonymusings.blogspot.com/2017/02/strange-associations.html

Food Security – A Strategy in Waiting
My persistent search for an answer.

http://tonymusings.blogspot.com/2017/02/food-security-strategy-in-waiting.html

The majority of people (85%) thought that the main supermarkets in Jersey would be able to keep their shelves stocked for about a week or less, if they suddenly didn’t receive any deliveries from outside of Jersey.

Although a small proportion (3%) of people were unsure how long it would be before their household ran out of food at home, a third of people (32%) judged that their household would run out of food in ‘a few days’, and a slightly higher proportion felt they would last ‘about a week’

Food security remains high on the agenda, as food production is now seen as strategically important given the rising world population and food price volatility. A draft Food Security Strategy was prepared for consideration by the Council of Ministers which sets out four main objectives:

1. Securing the availability of food
2. Securing the affordability of food
3. Securing the ability to produce food
4. Securing against supply shocks

Where is it? When I asked via an FOE request, I had:

“Justification for exemption: A draft food security strategy is being prepared and will be integrated within the new Rural Economy Strategy (RES) due to be published in autumn 2016."”

Well then came the Rural Economy Strategy in February 2017, finally, and I have yet to see the draft food security strategy which isn't there despite promises!.

Standing Orders

At the time, I had forgotten that in many cases, dual citizenship is possible.

http://tonymusings.blogspot.com/2017/02/standing-orders.html

Jersey politicians have voted against allowing non-British citizens from standing for election in the island. Deputy Montfort Tadier called for a change to the current rules, which stop islanders without a British passport from being part of the States Assembly. His proposition did not get the backing from the majority of politicians though, with only eight members agreeing to the idea.

There is not a country in the world so far as I know that subscribes to the idea that a foreign national can stand for election to their parliament or national assembly. It is not enough just to be resident, but to have a commitment which comes through naturalisation.

Passing the Buck

A look at Facebook Taxi services.

http://tonymusings.blogspot.com/2017/02/passing-buck.html

When asked, Jersey Police said it was out of their jurisdiction and they won't be taking any action, and the BBC should check with the Department of Infrastructure.

Jersey's Department for Infrastructure said it could only regulate registered drivers and could nott control the actions of members of the public, and the BBC should contact the police.

It is important to point-out that giving lifts for money will breach the conditions of a private motor insurance policy. So if you have an accident, neither driver nor passengers will be covered. [Even carrying freight requires 'hire and reward' type of insurance cover!!] So, in effect, you are driving without insurance.

The Many TV and Movie Faces of Churchill

Timothy Spall 5/10

Ian MacNiece 5/10

Robert Hardy 8/10

John Lithgow 3/10

Brendan Gleeson 2/10

Richard Burton 5/10

Michael Gambon 6/10

Brian Cox 4/10

David Ryall 4/10

Gary Oldman 8/10

Gary Oldman - Probably one of the best after Hardy

That was the Church that Was: A Look at Denmark

That was the Church that Was: Dane Law

Linda Woodhead is Professor of Sociology of Religion at Lancaster University. She is the co-author of “That Was the Church That Was: How the Church of England Lost the English People.” 

I’ve been reading the book, and while it is full of gossip, the sociological explanations seem to be facile, and not standing up to the evidence. But what is the evidence? Here is some of it, from an interview, she gave in November 2016:

“The Church of England's own statistics, published late last month, show attendance falling relentlessly by 1% a year, and funerals declining even faster - down 30% since 2005. Today only about 1% of the population (750,000) are in one of its churches on Sunday, and fewer than one in three have an Anglican funeral.”

In her narrative of decline, she makes the following comparison with the Danish Church

“Church leaders like to blame ‘secularization’ but a glance at the Church of England's sister churches in Scandinavia shows this can't be the whole story.”

“Take the Church of Denmark, a fellow Reformation church integral to the project of nation-building and existing today in the context of an affluent liberal democracy. Its decline is far slower than the Church of England's, with over three-quarters of Danes still choosing to pay church tax, 83% having a Church funeral and two-thirds of Danish babies baptised.”

Her thesis is that by doing things wrong on an organisational and managerial level, the Church of England has declined more than the Danish Church.

But dig beneath the surface of the Church of Denmark, and a very different picture begins to emerge. This rather undermines her thesis, as it demonstrates that allegiance is only skin-deep, and it is beginning to decay just as rapidly as the Church of England.

The Independent in 2016 reports:

Thousands of people have left the Church of Denmark following a nationwide advertising campaign by the country's atheist society. Between April and June, 10,000 people left the church - the highest number of registered withdrawals since 2007. Chairman of the society Anders Stjernholm told Politiken: "We’re pleased that Danes have taken the opportunity to express what they actually want. “We have long seen in surveys that there aren’t that many Danes who are devout Christians.”

In fact, the final statistics show that some 25,000 Danes ceased to be a member of the church in 2016 – of which 35 percent were aged 18-28.

Part of the reason is that baptism confers automatic membership of the church in Denmark.

“All Danish citizens automatically become members of the Church of Denmark when they are baptised and can withdraw by written application to their parish office or by joining another faith.”

This is however a small number in terms of church membership, but far more significant is the decline in baptisms. CHP Post reports on figures from the Church Ministry that:

“The figures reveal that 62.6 percent of all new-borns in Denmark were christened in 2014 – a 1.3 percent drop from the year before and a considerable decline since 1990, when 80.6 percent were baptised.”

The reasons are seen by observers as due to lifestyle choices rather than anything the Church is doing:

“Research has also showed that younger people are less likely to feel connected to the Danish Church and its rituals. More and more children are making their own decisions now. ‘Many parents refuse to make a choice regarding religion for their children,’ said Trolle. ‘Most of the parents that I spoke to, in connection with the survey produced by theologian Karen Marie Leth-Nissen and myself, said the child’s right to choose was most important.’”

As “The Local DK” website reports:

“As of the first quarter of 2016, there were just under 4.4 million members of the Church, amounting to 76.9 percent of the population. Ten years ago, 83.1 percent of Danes were members.”

It also notes that “as a place of worship, attendances have never been lower, with only 10 percent regularly attending church.” That’s 2016. In 2012, “only about 20 percent of members attend regular Sunday services.” That is a huge decline over 4 years.

A result of this cultural shift is that more people in Denmark attend All Saint’s Day rather than Christmas. The most popular service hasn’t been Christmas Eve or Easter Sunday, but rather All Saints’ Day on the first Sunday of November.

“Danish people, following a similar tradition to Mexico’s Día de los Muertos (Day of the Dead), use the service to remember the passing of their loved ones.”

A recent Epinion survey on behalf of national broadcaster Danmarks Radio (DR) reveals that religion means little to most Danes:

“Just 17 percent of the respondents said religion was important to their lives. Fully 49 percent disagreed with the statement that “religion is very important to my life”, and a further 30 percent were ambivalent.”

“The vast majority of the doubters are not religious or atheist at all, but simply don’t care. It’s a growing group – in Denmark and in the rest of the world.”

It is not the increase in migrants of other faiths which is the main determinant of decline, but a cultural shift among those whose families would, a generation or two ago, have been part of the national church.

Yet despite only 17 percent finding religion to be of importance, the survey also notes that 76 percent of Danes are still members of the Church of Denmark. But according to Jacobsen, that’s down to culture, not religion.

“For many Danes, their relationship with the church has more to do with a national identity rather than a religious one,” he said. And clearly that no longer needs church as notional for life rituals.

So despite Linda Woodhead’s comparison, what picture really emerges in Denmark is a church in  decline, buildings being sold off, a decline in numbers of clergy, less baptisms, and even where there are baptisms, this is more of a token rite of passage, more folk religion than Christianity. Membership figures are falling, but within that membership figures – and despite embracing women priests and gay marriage – fewer and fewer people are making a real commitment.

The surface decline appears notionally slower in Denmark than England, but as surveys show, the actual decline is just as prevalent.