Preview: Tim Minchin on his love of Christmas
Extracts from the comedian's article in the special Richard Dawkins guest-edited New Statesman
By Alice Gribbin Published 16 December 2011 15:37
Among the highlights of the special Christmas issue of the New Statesman, guest-edited by Richard Dawkins and available for purchase here, the comedian and actor Tim Minchin offers anecdotes from the past and present Minchin family vault, and vindicates his love of the festive season's fictional tales:
... I face a dilemma: I had sold [my daughter] the myth of Father Christmas in the spirit of allowing a child a sense of wonderment, but I felt that lying to her face when she'd asked me point blank about the veracity of my claims was a step too far.
I fumbled around a bit before opting for: "Father Christmas is real . . . in the imaginary world."
Unsurprisingly to him, Minchin's four-year-old is not satisfied by this offering:
Like so much language in theology, philosophy and parenting, that sentence has the odour of wisdom, but is a load of old bollocks. Quite nice as a phrase, but pure sophistry, like a lot of the stuff I say on stage and like nearly everything your preacher has ever said.
Yet these stories -- even the "quite nice one" about Jesus -- are less troubling to Minchin's skeptical mind than one may think:
I was asked recently how I reconcile my reputation for championing a naturalistic world-view with the fact that I have co-written Matilda - a musical based on a Roald Dahl novel about a girl who is preternaturally gifted and, eventually, telekinetic.
What an odd question . . . I adore Christmas. The fact that I know that Christianity's origins lie more in Paul of Tarsus's mental illness and the emperor of Constantine's political savvy than in the existence of the divine has no bearing on my ability to embrace this age-old festival of giving, family and feasting.
You can read Minchin's full article, and a wealth of exclusive content from the late Christopher Hitchens to Bill Gates, Carolyn Porco to Carol Ann Duffy, and many more besides, in the Richard Dawkins guest-edited New Statesman Christmas issue, out now.

To subscribe to the New Statesman or purchase this special issue, click here
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Online writers:
- Steven Baxter
- Rowenna Davis
- David Allen Green
- Mehdi Hasan
- Nelson Jones
- Gavin Kelly
- Helen Lewis
- Laurie Penny
- The V Spot
- Alex Hern
- Martha Gill
- Alan White
- Samira Shackle
- Alex Andreou
- Nicky Woolf in America
- Bim Adewunmi
- Glosswitch
- Kate Mossman on pop
- Ryan Gilbey on Film
- Martin Robbins
- Rafael Behr
- Eleanor Margolis
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Advertising
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists




















8 comments
Paul had visions and thus you have to decide between Paul being a lier or having some issue that caused the visions.
Here's more:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1032067/
Paul was a bit of a libertine before being struck down by a blinding flash on the road to Damascus; he put it down to a 'conversion' and seeing the ligt, but I have other ideas. You could say that Paul invented the whole Christian myth in his Epistles.
The Santa Claus fable is a good way of making kids behave for the rest of the year.
Christmas may have once been a Christian holiday but these days it's just a capitalist celebration of excess. Do I care that it is like this? Not in the slightest. But I do find it amusing when Christians and mittel England tabloids proclaim every year that there is a "war on Christmas" not realising it was fought lost a long time ago. Coca cola, Tesco, Marks and Spencer, BHS et al were the victors. I would be deeply surprised if the number of people who gave recognition to the religion origins Christmas by attending a midnight mass or whatever was more than a few %.
"Paul of Tarsus's mental illness"??????????? Explain??? Are people allowed to just write such Da Vinci Code Statements in what is supposed to be a quality magazine without more coherent reasoning to back up a statement??
I know let's imagine Paul, a Jewish chap from 2000 years ago with all his cultural context and references were suddenly put in our society - yes he might appear mentally ill.
I am not a Christian (I was formerly) but am increasingly at the intellectual laziness in this magazine. Paul, is of a cultural context and is more likely a genius than mentally ill. His writing style has to be thought of as original (it has shaped much consequent writing) and demonstrative of a highly logical deep thinking mind.
Paul was an epileptic, a mysoginist and viewed the human body as abhorrent - especially his own.
Moreover, half of 'Paul's Epistles' were forged by rival fantasists.
Twenty centuries of sexual guilt are rooted in the neurotic ravings of that ancient boil.
'Demonstrative of a highly logical deep thinking mind'? There's a difference between being a good orator who takes advantage of cult personality, and being legitimately brilliant. You are guilty of the same accusation levied against NS: being allowed to write oblique statements (in this case: apologist statements) without coherent reasoning to back it up -- but I'll save you some time. Don't bother bringing forth your evidence because you missed the point. Minchin provided his opinion, and within that opinion the mental wellness of Paul is entirely inessential: you can enjoy community, camaraderie, and reflection without being required to have faith in old ghosts.