________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Good Riddance

The reasons for celebrating the year 2000 as the start of the
new millennium are persuasive, if not strictly logical.

By Diogenes

Yes, I have heard all the arguments. Technically speaking, the new millennium has not yet begun. I don’t care.

When you count to 100, you begin with 1, not with 0. So if you break the count down into groups of 10, the number 10 itself comes at the end of the first group, not the beginning of the second. By the same logical process, it is a simple matter to conclude that the year 2000 is really the final year of the second Christian millennium, rather than the first year of the third.

We are prescinding here from the scholarly discussion over the actual date of Christ’s birth. If the scholars are right, then we are left with the curious proposition that Jesus was born (according to the current accounting) in the year 7 Before Christ. But that question is academic—both literally and figuratively. The principle here is, I believe, an ancient one: “In for a penny, in for a pound.” If you’ve spent several centuries putting dates on historical events, only to learn that those dates are technically inaccurate, the best thing to do is put on a bold face and continue with the inaccuracy. It would be foolish even to try to reprogram the memories of millions of English-speaking people, so that they could say that the Battle of Hastings occurred in 1059; it simply couldn’t be done. So we march blithely into the future, giving inaccurate dates for every event in history. And frankly, . . . well, Rhett Butler said it all.

There are times, you see, when perception overwhelms reality. If everyone agrees that this is the 2000th year since the birth of Christ, then dissent from that proposal is silly. We must have some benchmark, and an inaccurate one that gains universal acceptance is preferable to an accurate one that is widely rejected.

So if the strict logicians would please pack up their arguments in the mothballs, I propose that we join our neighbors in welcoming the new millennium. Think of it this way: If you are a gracious host, and a guest arrives a bit early for your party, don’t you just forget about the time listed on the invitation, and begin the festivities right away?

An early escape

There is, I would add, an even more compelling reason for counting 2000 as the first year of the new millennium. If we are still slogging our way through the second millennium, then it follows that we must still be trapped in the 20th century. And if someone has found a way to arrange our premature escape from that blood-soaked era, by all means we should take advantage of it. Let’s not ask petty questions; let’s slam shut the book on the 20th century, and say, “Thank God it’s over.”

During the last several weeks of 1999, scores of journalists favored us with their lists of the most important events and personalities of the millennium that would soon be coming to a close. Personally, I confess that I really don’t know too much about the last millennium; I was only around for about 5 percent of it. But I did notice that every list was skewed a bit, understandably giving special prominence to the writer’s own interests. Very few of those lists gave an important place to the most important story of the last two millennia: the rise and spread of Christianity.

One way to judge the importance of a historical event is to ask what would have happened if the event had turned differently. Just for example, how might the world have been different if the Crusaders had not stayed out in the blazing sun all day on the field of Hattin, so that they were nearly paralyzed by sunstroke and heat exhaustion when Saladin’s army fell upon them? What would European civilization be like today if Don Juan’s fleet had run into unfavorable winds at the Battle of Lepanto? Would Christian unity be a more immediate goal if Elizabeth I had agreed to marry Philip II?

There is a unifying theme behind those “what if” questions. When we think about the history of the first few centuries after the year 1000, our view is dominated by the efforts to spread Christian culture around the world. Then, somewhere around the middle of the millennium, other historical forces came into the foreground: individualism, industrialism, socialism, and consumerism. By the 20th century, Christian culture was withering on the vine, while the relentless pursuit of a man-made utopia was giving us the gas chambers, the gulags, the ethnic-cleansing campaigns, and the abortion mills. The trend was an ominous one, and it seemed to be accelerating.

So now, with the help of a bit of mathematical sleight-of-hand, we have the opportunity to bring down the curtain on the ugliest of centuries. I say we should snatch the opportunity, proclaim that an era has ended, and never look back.

Back to Catholic Information Center on Internet's Main Periodical Page

Back to Catholic World Report - February 2000 - Table of Contents