Nigerian Christianity faced several trying moments this year, but the hill on which the Christian Association of Nigeria President, Archbishop Daniel Okoh, has chosen to die this December is a mere film title. In all the media reporting of CAN’s umbrage with “A Very Dirty Christmas”, a film produced by popular actress Ini Edo, there is zero indication whatsoever that Archbishop Okoh had seen the film and found the offence in the narration. He reacted—in fact, overreacted—to the mere film title that associated “dirt” (and its filthy connotations) with the Christmas season. Until CAN mentioned it, no Christian I know lost sleep over that film title. What is instantly obvious here is that CAN is acting like those Muslims who routinely find offence in cultural references to their religion. They are the ones who feign aggrieved while also being the aggressor, and the rest of the world has learned to tiptoe around them to prevent an outbreak of violence.
If that group of Muslims finds anything even mildly offensive, all they need to do is yell, and the police IG will not rest until the entire machinery of the police has been ceded to rectify their resentment. If their perturbation is not addressed, they might set the world alight. Christians, on the other hand, are just not as threatening, and it is highly unlikely that even their substantial aggrievement will receive as much institutional consideration. That is why it is mildly disturbing to see CAN fritter away its social capital pursuing non-issues like this one. Even if the CAN leadership succeeds in getting the artists to change a film title, what does it translate to beyond mere symbolism? I am not saying they have no right to be offended at all (especially if the reference is substantially vulgar), but why not keep your powder dry for serious matters rather than merely nitpick?
The battle CAN is fighting to preserve the sanctity of Christmas and prevent it from becoming a meaningless metaphor is at least more than a century overdue. Thanks to various globalising forces, Christmas has become a universal cultural festival and no longer the exclusive preserve of Christians. In Eric Schmidt’s Consumer Rites: The Buying and Selling of American Holidays, he details the evolution of Christmas in the West, demonstrating how the event progressed from a religious observance to a cultural festival. Even as far back as the 19th century, when Christmas began to evolve with consumer culture, people have been jittery that “Christ” was being removed from “Christmas”. Also, despite the frequent reminders that “Christ is the reason for the season”, Christmas remains permeated by the consumerism that largely demystifies any claim to the sacred.
Today, Christmas is celebrated worldwide (including in Muslim countries) and not merely by Christians. Of course, Christmas retains its historical connection to Christianity, which is why some Muslims throw a fit when they see fellow Muslims join in celebrating the festival. For instance, some people have made it their calling in life to perch annually on the Instagram page of footballer Mo Salah every December to gripe when he posts a photo of his family surrounded by the trappings of Christmas. To such folks, Christmas remains a Christian thing, and any Muslim who participates is a sellout. However, when you look beyond those idiosyncratic instances, Christmas has become a normative cultural practice that can be celebrated by virtually anyone. Its symbols are no longer exclusive to Christians, nor does a film titled “Dirty Christmas” necessarily reference religion.
What, precisely, is “Christian” about the various symbols and activities we have come to attach to Christmas—from Santa Claus to the bright Christmas lights, the colours red and white, Feliz Navidad, the endless shopping activities, colourfully wrapped gifts, and even the famous decorated Christmas tree? It is noteworthy that the colours red and white, which have become synonymous with Christmas, originated in Coca-Cola’s 1930s ads. Even the whole idea of Christmas itself was a reclamation from pagan festivals.
Christmas has come a long way, and quibbling over a film title is picking the wrong fights. There is nothing in the CAN’s argument that suggests that Ini Edo denigrated the faith practices of Christians. Why the fuss? There are Christian bodies under CAN’s umbrella that do not even celebrate Christmas at all, so why act as if what the film has done is an egregious violation of a festival universally held sacred among Christians?
As an artist of many years standing, I expected Ini Edo to have stood for her art by making reasoned arguments to CAN rather than a tearful appeal. What is the point of an emotional case when you have a strong rational ground to stand on this issue? I understand that her financial investments were at stake and she was understandably frazzled that she would be financially ruined over a trivial matter, but she has come too far in this industry not to have mastered a proper defence of her art by now. Artists should learn to stand up to religious whims and not capitulate to them when challenged on the appropriation of religious symbols. I was disappointed when popular musician Davido, who had drawn the ire of Muslims over a music video his label had released, retracted the song in 2023. Knowing the Muslim propensity for violence, he thought it was best to withdraw the video, whose offence consisted of a bunch of people dancing in front of a mosque. But if our popular artists cannot stand on their own two feet and mount an intellectual defence of their art, but instead capitulate to the philistines, what we will end up producing will be impoverished art.
Finally, I quite understand that CAN, by taking offence, wants to assert respect for Christians similar to how Muslims maintain theirs through various forms of violence. From their al-majiri army that can easily lynch you in the streets to their educated class who can petition the police IG to arrest you, these people have the influence that the rest of us do not. Due to their tendency towards extremism, they can compel anyone to remove any cultural reference they deem offensive. If they had been the ones to ask Ini Edo to change her film title, the response would have been very different. But at the end of the day, so what? We are also witnesses to where this sort of influence has landed them. You only need to take a sweeping look at northern Nigeria, where that extremism thrives, and you will see how far violent behaviour has taken them. In Nigeria today, they are the worst off by every measurement. So, yes, they can make the police travel across state lines to arrest and incarcerate a man for burning a copy of the Quran, but they also cannot commute that power into human development. On every index, the region is poor, backwards, and trapped in a perpetual cycle of dependency and misery. From the menace of street urchins to poor educational achievements, banditry, terrorism, and cycles of social failures, their woes are seemingly unending. They have the power to destroy, but hardly the power to create. Yes, they can command our national attention by lynching someone on video and getting away with it, but what else can they do? Power that cannot effect anything worthwhile is powerless. CAN should recognise that the political power wielded by these extremists is nothing to be desired.
