# What about Christmas Decorations in Church?



## Phil D.

I'd be interested in people's thoughts about this. I'm thinking stuff like tress and wreaths - not 2nd Commandment violations like a nativity scene. Also might anyone draw any distinction between, say, putting up decorations in the foyer versus the sanctuary?


----------



## Kim G

I personally don't care to have decorations in the sanctuary. We are there to worship every week, regardless of what holiday coming up. And some of the members of our church do not celebrate Christmas, so I wouldn't want to cause discomfort at our place of worship! I don't mind winter decorations in our fellowship room, though. We eat lunch together every Sunday, and we might have poinsettias and evergreen in the winter just like we have other season-appropriate decorations the rest of the year.


----------



## Tripel

I'm in favor of such decorations, though by no means do I think they're necessary.

I don't consider decorations an element of worship.


----------



## Poimen

Christmas and Christmas decorations are a cultural practice not a Christian practice. So no they don't belong in the sanctuary.


----------



## SolaScriptura

Joshua said:


> "Here I am alone in the library and apparently everyone has gone from Machen Hall until Friday morning. Now it is 9:30 p.m. on Wednesday. You may think this dismal. Well, I love it. It is a delightful change from the usual stir. I have had two good days in the Library. Monday was taken up with committee meetings, forenoon and afternoon. I hope to be here all day tomorrow. I have not even accepted a dinner engagement for what they call ‘Christmas.’ I hate the whole business."
> 
> —*John Murray *(professor, Westminster Seminary, Orthodox Presbyterian Church), “Letter to Valerie Knowlton, Dec. 24, 1958,” in *Collected Writings, Vol. 3 (1958)*.


 
Sounds like an anti-social grinch.


----------



## Skyler

Poimen said:


> Christmas and Christmas decorations are a cultural practice not a Christian practice. So no they don't belong in the sanctuary.


 
So is wall paint.


----------



## Herald

We have two artificial ficus trees in the sanctuary that are there each week. I don't want to see garland, wreaths, or trees. I like seasonal flowers, so I wouldn't object to pointsettas, but that's it.

Sent using my most excellent Android device.


----------



## Phil D.

Herald said:


> We have two artificial ficus trees in the sanctuary that are there each week. I don't want to see garland, wreaths, or trees. I like seasonal flowers, so I wouldn't object to pointsettas, but that's it.
> 
> Sent using my most excellent Android device.



Personally I could do without any "seasonal" decorations anywhere in the church. Having said that, I don't see any direct theological grounds on which to oppose them (although I would be willing to be shown if someone thinks there is). As such this is not really a battle that I'm prepared to fight.


----------



## Poimen

Skyler said:


> Poimen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christmas and Christmas decorations are a cultural practice not a Christian practice. So no they don't belong in the sanctuary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So is wall paint.
Click to expand...

 
I don't think we share the same definition of 'cultural' if you think wall paint is included in that definition. Many cultures use paint in many different ways but paint itself is not, in my understanding and usage of the term 'cultural' or idiosyncratic to any one group of people in the world. Nevertheless wall paint has the helpful function of extending the life of our sanctuaries and thus would fall under the eight commandment. If, however, someone used wall paint to make a picture of Jesus we would have a different use and a violation of the second commandment.

Christmas and its attendant decorations do not contribute to the upkeep of the building. They are a cultural practice i.e. akin to placing an American flag in the sanctuary. They have nothing to do with the business of the church and, in fact, communicates adherence to something that is not representative of Christianity (even if you agree with the remembrance of Christ's birth on December 25).


----------



## Tripel

Poimen said:


> Christmas and its attendant decorations do not contribute to the upkeep of the building. They are a cultural practice i.e. akin to placing an American flag in the sanctuary. They have nothing to do with the business of the church and, in fact, communicates adherence to something that is not representative of Christianity (even if you agree with the remembrance of Christ's birth on December 25).



Is "contribute to the upkeep of the building" your standard for what is allowed in a place of worship?

If you draw the line at building upkeep and basic human needs, that is fine. I would imagine, however, that most people who are anti-Christmas decorations will allow for other decorative items in a sanctuary. Like a stained glass window, a floral arrangement, decorative light fixtures, etc.


----------



## seajayrice

Careful with trees and wreaths, there is a high potential for allergens to pollute the sanctuary. I do like understated decoration in the sanctuary, certainly no Santa Claus images.


----------



## Phil D.

seajayrice said:


> Careful with trees and wreaths, there is a high potential for allergens to pollute the sanctuary. I do like understated decoration in the sanctuary, certainly no Santa Claus images.


 
In all fairness on this issue, most trees and wreathes that I see these days are artificial (...maybe in more ways than one...)


----------



## seajayrice

Phil D. said:


> seajayrice said:
> 
> 
> 
> Careful with trees and wreaths, there is a high potential for allergens to pollute the sanctuary. I do like understated decoration in the sanctuary, certainly no Santa Claus images.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In all fairness on this issue, most trees and wreathes that I see these days are artificial (...maybe in more ways than one...)
Click to expand...

 
A fake tree in the sanctuary? My, that’s teed-up pretty high!


----------



## Rich Koster

Our feeble minds wander and are distracted enough. Why hang ornaments and add to the distraction. BTW *GO GRINCH!!!*


----------



## au5t1n

I wouldn't touch Josh with a...39 and a half foot pole!


----------



## Southern Presbyterian

Joshua said:


> SolaScriptura said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like an anti-social grinch.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that's the usual caricature applied.
Click to expand...

 
The Grinch and Scrooge are mere amateurs in comparison to Josh. 

He's my hero!


----------



## JonathanHunt

We have a big fat santa in the pulpit... no wait, that's me.


----------



## Mushroom

Are they elements of worship or incidental? Do we need the light or warmth from the advent candle to properly worship God? If not, then they take on the mantle of elements of worship, and are popish.

My Church does the candles. Has a nativity wall hanging in the fellowship hall (stood by it and read the WLC question and asnswer #109 in the presence of the Pastor and a RE the other day, got sheepish grins). I just leave it at that - more would escalate into division... they know my stand, and as a layman, I take into account this from question #108 - 


> The duties required in the second commandment are, the receiving, observing, and keeping pure and entire, all such religious worship and ordinances as God hath instituted in his word; particularly prayer and thanksgiving in the name of Christ; the reading, preaching, and hearing of the word; the administration and receiving of the sacraments; church government and discipline; the ministry and maintenance thereof; religious fasting; swearing by the name of God, and vowing unto him: as also the disapproving, detesting, opposing, all false worship; and, *according to each one's place and calling,* removing it, and all monuments of idolatry.


----------



## Reformed Roman

It could possibly add to the distraction I suppose, but if so why not have a completely white room? 

I see nothing with the decorations. The key is how the Pastor approaches his sermons, and how the church approaches their classes, and how they teach concerning Christmas


----------



## Herald

I truly love the annual PB Christmas threads along with the quaint anti-Christmas avatars. And now the annual debate includes the color of paint on the wall. It really doesn't get much better than this.

Sent using my most excellent Android device.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Somewhat interestingly we have wreaths on our doors but do not break the usual pattern of the other 52 Lord's Days in the Year. 

The Elders figured people might think they were closed if they did not at least put wreaths on the doors. Makes sense to me.


----------



## Phil D.

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Somewhat interestingly we have wreaths on our doors but do not break the usual pattern of the other 52 Lord's Days in the Year.
> 
> The Elders figured people might think they were closed if they did not at least put wreaths on the doors. Makes sense to me.


 
what about an "OPEN" sign, Rev.?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

I suppose we could get a neon sign...


----------



## Phil D.

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> I suppose we could get a neon sign...


 
Well, I was actually thinking more along the lines of a current service schedule or something...but I suppose it could be in neon as well.


----------



## N. Eshelman

I think fake flowers/trees/etc is tacky. 

I think Christmas is even more tacky. 

With that said...

We have poinsettias in the auditorium (and fellowship hall) during the month of December. We are about 50/50 for Xmas and no Xmas in our congregation; and the poinsettias don't bother me one bit. We have seasonal flowers all year long provided by one or two members of the church. 

This may be the extent of the Xmas discussion for the year.... and no, we don't celebrate it in our home.


----------



## Curt

Our building has stained glass windows. I'm not crazy about it, but I'm not going to break them.

No Christmas trees, please.


----------



## Edward

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> I suppose we could get a neon sign..



No, not Neon. Get one of the new computerized LED signs.


----------



## Marrow Man

Herald said:


> I truly love the annual PB Christmas threads along with the quaint anti-Christmas avatars. And now the annual debate includes the color of paint on the wall. It really doesn't get much better than this.



Perhaps we also start a "I'm a better Puritan than you" thread. Whoever doesn't paint their walls probably will win this one.

Now I'm waiting for someone to tell me that my wig powder is a violation of the RPW.


----------



## Curt

Marrow Man said:


> Now I'm waiting for someone to tell me that my wig powder is a violation of the RPW.



The RPW Inspection Team is winging its way to you at this very moment.


----------



## Herald

Marrow Man said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> I truly love the annual PB Christmas threads along with the quaint anti-Christmas avatars. And now the annual debate includes the color of paint on the wall. It really doesn't get much better than this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps we also start a "I'm a better Puritan than you" thread. Whoever doesn't paint their walls probably will win this one.
> 
> Now I'm waiting for someone to tell me that my wig powder is a violation of the RPW.
Click to expand...

 
Tim, I don't know if it's a violation of the RPW, but I've heard the DEA wants to talk to you about the powder you use.

Sent using my most excellent Android device.


----------



## AThornquist

I don't care either way. I'm grateful to worship in song and hear the Word of God preached. It's wonderful to be Western Christians who have such stupid things to argue about when most of this world doesn't even have Christ.


----------



## Phil D.

Marrow Man said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> I truly love the annual PB Christmas threads along with the quaint anti-Christmas avatars. And now the annual debate includes the color of paint on the wall. It really doesn't get much better than this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps we also start a "I'm a better Puritan than you" thread. Whoever doesn't paint their walls probably will win this one.
> 
> Now I'm waiting for someone to tell me that my wig powder is a violation of the RPW.
Click to expand...


I know I started this thread with pure, teachable motives, but I'll try to remember to clear my next one with you guys before I post it. Merry Christmas!


----------



## Herald

Phil D. said:


> Marrow Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> I truly love the annual PB Christmas threads along with the quaint anti-Christmas avatars. And now the annual debate includes the color of paint on the wall. It really doesn't get much better than this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps we also start a "I'm a better Puritan than you" thread. Whoever doesn't paint their walls probably will win this one.
> 
> Now I'm waiting for someone to tell me that my wig powder is a violation of the RPW.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know I started this thread with pure, teachable motives, but I'll try to remember to clear my next one with you guys before I post it. Merry Christmas!
Click to expand...

 
Chill, Phil. Tim wasn't responding to your OP. He was responding to my tongue-in-cheek at the predictable devolution of a well intenioned thread. 

Sent using my most excellent Android device.


----------



## Poimen

Tripel said:


> Poimen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christmas and its attendant decorations do not contribute to the upkeep of the building. They are a cultural practice i.e. akin to placing an American flag in the sanctuary. They have nothing to do with the business of the church and, in fact, communicates adherence to something that is not representative of Christianity (even if you agree with the remembrance of Christ's birth on December 25).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is "contribute to the upkeep of the building" your standard for what is allowed in a place of worship?
> 
> If you draw the line at building upkeep and basic human needs, that is fine. I would imagine, however, that most people who are anti-Christmas decorations will allow for other decorative items in a sanctuary. Like a stained glass window, a floral arrangement, decorative light fixtures, etc.
Click to expand...


No, it is not. It is simply one way of distinguishing between what is, in my opinion, useful (paint) and what is not (Christmas decorations). 

On a more general note: we can make fun of this subject all we want, but the fact of the matter is that our Puritan forefathers strongly opposed Christmas as well as many of our Reformed forebears. We, on the other hand, have become so accustomed to Christmas that it has become an essential (?) part of our worship and family life. So, in light of the attainments of past generations, it is good in fact that we contemplate whether or not this practice truly has any merit.


----------



## Tripel

Joshua said:


> AThornquist said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's wonderful to be Western Christians who have such stupid things to argue about . . .
> 
> 
> 
> What's "stupid" are not the things about which being argued, but the fact that such things have to be argued. _That's_ what's "stupid."
Click to expand...

 
Just want to clarify this......Josh, are you saying it's "stupid" that those like yourself are having to argue against the notion (from people like me) that it's OK to have Christmas decorations in the church?


----------



## Covenant Joel

Joshua said:


> I'm saying it's "stupid" that there's even a debate when it's clear "Christmas" has no place in the church, nor as a religious celebration in _any_ context.


 
Perhaps the word "stupid" shouldn't be bandied about by either group so lightly. Perhaps we're brothers in Christ with genuine disagreements over the matter. You say it's clear, many others would say it's not so clear. Perhaps we all need a little charity, regardless of what our position on this issue is.


----------



## Tripel

Joshua said:


> I'm saying it's "stupid" that there's even a debate when it's clear "Christmas" has no place in the church, nor as a religious celebration in _any_ context.


 
It may be clear to you, but it's certainly not so clear in the reformed church at large. Just look at how divided the Puritan Board is on the issue of Christmas.

If it's such a clear issue, and it's "stupid" that the debate even exists, why don't you add something about Christmas to the membership rules?


----------



## Philip

Joshua said:


> I'm saying it's "stupid" that there's even a debate when it's clear "Christmas" has no place in the church, nor as a religious celebration in any context.



It isn't clear. Hence the debate.

I prefer not to bind consciences either way.


----------



## Covenant Joel

Joshua said:


> Dear Friend,
> 
> I agree, which is why I placed quotation marks around _stupid_, only reflecting the original use of the word by a previous post-er.



I understand your reasoning, but I doubt if this is still the most charitable way to put it. Likewise for those who originally used the term.



> As for it being _clear_ or not, I think the Scriptures are clear that nowhere in Scripture is Christ-mass warranted as a day set apart for the remembrance and special worship of the Lord in the context of His incarnation. The Scriptures are clear, as are the Westminster Standards, that the only holy day is that day, the Lord's holy day, set apart by Himself _for_ Himself and only that day in which He's given His people to sanctify them. Simply put, it shouldn't be a religious day (unless of course the 25th falls upon the Lord's Day, but then the celebration is pertaining to all of Christ's work, not His incarnation and not to mass). It is even more assaulting when churches decorate their halls with "Christmas" decor and press "Christmasy" things without Scriptural warrant upon the consciences of the churchgoers. No session, presbytery, or other ecclesiastical body has the right to do or authorize such.


 
My point isn't to debate the issue with you. I'm not even stating my opinion on the issue. I certainly understand where you are coming, having grown up with that perspective. But I also understand that there are many faithful brothers and sisters--even within the Reformed world, with whom you would agree on most things--who would not agree that celebrating Christmas is a violation such as you argue. I understand that it is very clear to you that they are mistaken. But they may view you in much the same way, so perhaps we ought to show more charity on the issue...from both sides, not yours alone.


----------



## Tripel

I may be opposing the Puritans' position on Christmas, but I'm content siding with Ligon Duncan, RC Sproul, and the many others on this clear issue.


----------



## PresbyDane

Christmass time is one of those times a year, where my bibliofile tendensies overwright.
If for nothing else, "go christmass, I might get a book!"


----------



## Rich Koster

I wish I could hibernate through all of the nonsense that springs up every December, especially the phony warm fuzzies at work. I wish the popish mass/ winter solstice hybrid would go bye-bye.  I think I'll watch "Homey Claus" on You Tube and say "bah humbug" and leave it at that.


----------



## LeeJUk

I'm about to solve this entire thing.

Rom 14:1 As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. 
Rom 14:2 One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. 
Rom 14:3 Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. 
Rom 14:4 Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand. 
Rom 14:5 One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 
Rom 14:6 The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. 

Your welcome

Merry Christmas (or Christ-mass if you prefer)


----------



## Poimen

Lee:

These verses from Romans 14 are not to the point of the op: the question is not "may we put up decorations in our homes?" but "may we put up decorations in the church?" Paul is giving us liberty to esteem one day above another in the liberty of our conscience but this does not establish that this may be done in the church. That is "each one" may practice the day as they see fit, but that is a far cry from foisting it upon others in the church setting when they are offended by it and, furthermore, believe it to be a violation of God's Word because it is not commanded in scripture and undermines their liberty as Christians.

Furthermore, one could contest that Paul had holy days in mind when he penned these words. Were early Christians debating about the propriety of extra services outside of the canon or Jewish holy days from the Old Testament? The latter seems more likely given the fact that it is explicitly raised in Colossians 2 & Galatians 4.


----------



## LeeJUk

Well Poimen your right that Paul was saying this in the sense of an individuals liberty but I also think the principal applies here. I believe each church has the liberty to put up Christmas decorations or not put them up since the scriptures are not clear on the issue. Therefore those churches and denominations that do not celebrate Christmas should not judge those churches that do, and vice versa.

You can very well say to put Christmas decorations up in Church is to force Christmas on these people who disagree on scriptural grounds with it. Do you make allowance however for the people on the other side of the argument? What about church members who do feel they want to celebrate the advent calendar and Christ's birth at this time of year? Shouldn't the church make allowances for these people? Are these peoples liberty not being restricted should christmas practically be ignored, taught against and frowned upon?


----------



## Andres

LeeJUk said:


> You can very well say to put Christmas decorations up in Church is to force Christmas on these people who disagree on scriptural grounds with it. Do you make allowance however for the people on the other side of the argument? What about church members who do feel they want to celebrate the advent calendar and Christ's birth at this time of year? Shouldn't the church make allowances for these people? Are these peoples liberty not being restricted should christmas practically be ignored, taught against and frowned upon?



Lee, I know you are studying to be a minister. When that time comes, what will you tell your congregation if you have several members who desire to decorate the church (including the sanctuary) with all manner of Halloween decorum? What if they want to celebrate Halloween, not only in their personal home, but also in the church? Would you make allowances for these people? If you answer no, do you think you are restricting those people's liberties?


----------



## LeeJUk

Theres a big difference between Halloween which has nothing to do with Christ and a true celebration of the birth of Christ.


----------



## Edward

Marrow Man said:


> Now I'm waiting for someone to tell me that my wig powder is a violation of the RPW.



It does look more like what a Charles supporting Cavalier would wear rather than what one would find on a Roundhead.


----------



## Philip

Edward said:


> Marrow Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now I'm waiting for someone to tell me that my wig powder is a violation of the RPW.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It does look more like what a Charles supporting Cavalier would wear rather than what one would find on a Roundhead.
Click to expand...

 
Indeed:



1066 and All That said:


> Charles I was a Cavalier king and therefore had a small pointed beard, long flowing curls, a large, flat, flowing hat and _gay attire_. The roundheads, on the other hand, were clean-shaven and wore tall, conical hats, white ties and _sombre garments_. Under these circumstances a Civil War was inevitable.


----------



## Andres

LeeJUk said:


> Theres a big difference between Halloween which has nothing to do with Christ and a true celebration of the birth of Christ.


 
my brother, please explain to me where you get that Christmas has anything to do with Christ? You will find as much support in scripture for the celebration of Halloween as you will for the celebration of Christmas. For me, this is exactly the point of this thread. Christmas is not, nor was it ever a "Christian" holiday and as such it has no place in the church. In your previous post you mentioned giving the congregation liberty in what they choose to celebrate. If this is your stance, then your congregation would have just as much precedence to celebrate Halloween in the church as they would Christmas.


----------



## calgal

Andres said:


> LeeJUk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Theres a big difference between Halloween which has nothing to do with Christ and a true celebration of the birth of Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> my brother, please explain to me where you get that Christmas has anything to do with Christ? You will find as much support in scripture for the celebration of Halloween as you will for the celebration of Christ. For me, this is exactly the point of this thread. Christmas is not, nor was it ever a "Christian" holiday and as such it has no place in the church. In your previous post you mentioned giving the congregation liberty in what they choose to celebrate. If this is your stance, then your congregation would have just as much precedence to celebrate Halloween in the church as they would Christmas.
Click to expand...

 
Wow. My JW coworker would be enjoying your sentiments and calling you brother as would our muslim clients.


----------



## Marrow Man

Edward said:


> It does look more like what a Charles supporting Cavalier would wear rather than what one would find on a Roundhead.



Them's fighting words! 

And you're about 100 years off!


----------



## au5t1n

calgal said:


> Andres said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeeJUk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Theres a big difference between Halloween which has nothing to do with Christ and a true celebration of the birth of Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> my brother, please explain to me where you get that Christmas has anything to do with Christ? You will find as much support in scripture for the celebration of Halloween as you will for the celebration of Christ. For me, this is exactly the point of this thread. Christmas is not, nor was it ever a "Christian" holiday and as such it has no place in the church. In your previous post you mentioned giving the congregation liberty in what they choose to celebrate. If this is your stance, then your congregation would have just as much precedence to celebrate Halloween in the church as they would Christmas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow. My JW coworker would be enjoying your sentiments and calling you brother as would our muslim clients.
Click to expand...

 
Yeah, this is why I believe very strongly in praying to Mary. 

---------- Post added at 09:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:38 PM ----------

However, I do think saying Christmas is not a Christian holiday is playing word games. It is a holiday in which several Christian traditions celebrate the birth of Christ. It may be an _unwarranted_ Christian holiday, but a Christian holiday it is. Halloween does not celebrate an event in Christ's life.


----------



## Marrow Man

Herald said:


> Phil D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marrow Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> I truly love the annual PB Christmas threads along with the quaint anti-Christmas avatars. And now the annual debate includes the color of paint on the wall. It really doesn't get much better than this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps we should also start a "I'm a better Puritan than you" thread. Whoever doesn't paint their walls probably will win this one.
> 
> Now I'm waiting for someone to tell me that my wig powder is a violation of the RPW.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know I started this thread with pure, teachable motives, but I'll try to remember to clear my next one with you guys before I post it. Merry Christmas!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chill, Phil. Tim wasn't responding to your OP. He was responding to my tongue-in-cheek at the predictable devolution of a well intenioned thread.
Click to expand...


Yep, that about sums it up. Phil, that remark had nothing to do with you. Your OP posed a good question. But this sort of thread almost always seems to devolve. Hence, my "I'm a better Puritan than you" comment. A way of lamenting the disappointment, if you will.

Also, it should have been clear that I was not being completely serious. No one here is checking wig powder.

Are they?


----------



## Edward

Marrow Man said:


> No one here is checking wig powder.
> 
> Are they?



Of course not. But just for the files, what brand of powder is it?


----------



## Marrow Man

Edward said:


> But just for the files, what brand of powder is it?



I'll never tell!


----------



## LeeJUk

Andres said:


> LeeJUk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Theres a big difference between Halloween which has nothing to do with Christ and a true celebration of the birth of Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> my brother, please explain to me where you get that Christmas has anything to do with Christ? You will find as much support in scripture for the celebration of Halloween as you will for the celebration of Christ. For me, this is exactly the point of this thread. Christmas is not, nor was it ever a "Christian" holiday and as such it has no place in the church. In your previous post you mentioned giving the congregation liberty in what they choose to celebrate. If this is your stance, then your congregation would have just as much precedence to celebrate Halloween in the church as they would Christmas.
Click to expand...

 
I agree the bible doesn't tell us to celebrate Christmas but it doesn't necessarily tell us to celebrate Good Friday or Easter either. Apart from perhaps indirectly in the Lords day but of course Easter as practiced is something different from the Lords day altogether.

Next I would draw your attention to the fact the bible also says nothing about ministers conducting funerals, weddings (Christ attended a wedding in Cana, only in a guest capacity though), says nothing about celebrating the reformation and several other things. It doesn't mean however its wrong to do these things. 

I do think its right to celebrate the birth of Christ, and even though Christ wasn't born on December 25th this is as good a time as any to do it in my opinion and there is nothing wrong with it. As long as no idolatrous images are involved and such.

This will be my last message on the issue and we'll need to just separate on the issue in brotherly peace and charity.


----------



## py3ak

P. F. Pugh said:


> It isn't clear. Hence the debate.



That's rather an absurd remark, unless you mean it of subjective apprehension. Many things are clearly taught in Scripture yet aren't confessed by all. We cannot make man's understanding the determiner of God's truth.

To everyone, let me say that however trivial or emotional this topic is, there is no excuse for hasty, bad-tempered posting or seriously putting forward bad arguments.


----------



## Andres

Lee,
Ministers conducting funerals and weddings are outside of the Lord's Day corporate worship. If a church wanted to have a wedding/funeral in lieu of Sunday worship, I would heartily object to it, just as I would oppose a reformation day celebration in place of normal corporate worship. I do not have a problem if people choose to celebrate some elements of xmas outside of church in their homes. I personally do not, but i see it as an issue of liberty when it's an issue of what families choose to do in their own homes. What I am objecting to is the co-mingling of christmas celebrations w/corporate worship. 
As for celebrating the birth of Christ, while certainly commendable, i think it's important to acknowledge the entire scope of His life, death, and resurrection. This often gets left out at Christmastime.


----------



## TomVols

Andres said:


> As for celebrating the birth of Christ, while certainly commendable, i think it's important to acknowledge the entire scope of His life, death, and resurrection. This often gets left out at Christmastime.


This is helpful advice. During Advent, we celebrate Lord's Supper to remind people that the manger leads to a cross. It is also a wonderful time to teach the sovereign purpose of God (Gal 4:4-5) in redemptive history. 

Two other general remarks (not directed at you, Andres) that I hope do not offend. First, it is indeed curious to me that people appeal to the NT to teach about what belongs in the church/sanctuary when the NT church had no church of its own. My IFB brothers who rail against fellowship meals based on Paul's "let a man eat a home" instruction are sort of in the same boat. Second, it's indeed a bit of a blessing that we do have buildings now to debate about since so much of the Christian world can't and don't meet publicly in their own buildings as we do for fear of their lives. Reminder: pray for your persecuted sisters and brothers around the world, especially those who are in prison for being set free by Christ.


----------



## Semiomniscient

At our church, our pastor always connects Christ's first advent to the one to come. Considering we normally get so precious little eschatology, it's nice to use the Advent Season to do so. (It's at least different to what the average church-goer receives around Christmas time).
As for the decorations, we have garland and poinsettias. (We've done lights on the garland in the past, but I don't know if it's done like that this year). It's not over-done in my opinion. I like it though. I think that giving Christmas over to be a secular and cultural holiday is silly and irresponsible. The Church long ago converted the celebration to Christ-centered, and we should strive to keep it that way. But perhaps, I'm straying too far from decorations in church. But the point is that if you ban all decorations in church, it appears as though the acknowledgment of the holiday is being sworn off.


----------



## Andres

Semiomniscient said:


> The Church long ago converted the celebration to Christ-centered, and we should strive to keep it that way.



my understanding was that it was Rome who converted the celebration to "Christianize" it. I find a big difference with this and what you said above.


----------



## wtleaver

Please forgive the ignorance of one recently (within the last year) reformed.

Can I assume that anyone who adheres to the RPW would object to Christmas decorations within the church? I'm a new member of a PCA church which does not adhere, so I can only guess.

Personally, Christmas is one of many things that I was uncomfortable with as an arminian Baptist, and which led me to eventually investigate and convert to the reformed perspective. I've been uncomfortable with Christmas (and Easter as well) since learning more about their origins at the age of 18 (25 years ago.)

Now I feel so much more at home in a good, conservative PCA church, but they do have garland and poinsettias in the sanctuary. I can tolerate them, but I'd prefer they not be there. We also have three Christmas trees at home, garland, lights, etc. I had no part in putting them up, and would prefer they not be there, but my wife and I are in disagreement on this matter, so she and the kids put them up and I live with them for a few weeks.

I imagine I might be more comfortable in a RPW adhering environment, but I don't know of any such churches in my area. Not to mention our Pastors are fabulous and everything else about worship at our church is fantastic, so it would be hard to leave.


----------



## Tripel

wtleaver said:


> Can I assume that anyone who adheres to the RPW would object to Christmas decorations within the church? I'm a new member of a PCA church which does not adhere, so I can only guess.


 
No. It's a matter of interpretation of the RPW. Many here (including myself) adhere to the RPW but don't think that decorations are a violation. I consider poinsettias to be just as keeping with the RPW as a stained glass window. Neither are elements of worship.


----------



## wtleaver

Tripel said:


> I consider poinsettias to be just as keeping with the RPW as a stained glass window. Neither are elements of worship.


 
Interesting. I personally see a huge distinction. One the one hand you have a pretty window which is part of the building in which the congregation meets to worship, while on the other hand you have a temporary embellishment imported into the worship space at a particular time of the year, which communicates to everyone the approval of a particular "Christian" holiday that is nowhere to be found in scripture, nor the first several centuries of Christian history.


----------



## Philip

Andres said:


> Semiomniscient said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Church long ago converted the celebration to Christ-centered, and we should strive to keep it that way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> my understanding was that it was Rome who converted the celebration to "Christianize" it. I find a big difference with this and what you said above.
Click to expand...

 
Not just Rome, the whole church (aside from the Persian/Assyrian churches) adopted this festival.

The thing was, it was recognized that either a) the Church could do nothing and people would continue to celebrate the pagan festival or b) the Church could hold its own celebration that would infuse old symbols with new meaning. The Church recognized that as human beings, we need traditions and holidays, if only for focal points of our years. The choice was either to tolerate the pagan celebrations (or suppress---in which case, people would probably celebrate in secret) or to provide an alternative that celebrated something worth celebrating.


----------



## Andres

P. F. Pugh said:


> Andres said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Semiomniscient said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Church long ago converted the celebration to Christ-centered, and we should strive to keep it that way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> my understanding was that it was Rome who converted the celebration to "Christianize" it. I find a big difference with this and what you said above.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not just Rome, the whole church (aside from the Persian/Assyrian churches) adopted this festival.
> 
> The thing was, it was recognized that either a) the Church could do nothing and people would continue to celebrate the pagan festival or b) the Church could hold its own celebration that would infuse old symbols with new meaning. The Church recognized that as human beings, we need traditions and holidays, if only for focal points of our years. The choice was either to tolerate the pagan celebrations (or suppress---in which case, people would probably celebrate in secret) or to provide an alternative that celebrated something worth celebrating.
Click to expand...

 
I would still disagree with your understanding of the assimilation of Christmas into the church. here is an excerpt from an article by Kevin Reed:



> The transition from festivals commemorating the birth of a sun god to a celebration ostensibly for the Son of God occurred sometime in the fourth century. Unable to eradicate the heathen celebration of Saturnalia, the Church of Rome, sometime before 336 A.D., designated a Feast of the Nativity to be observed.[4]
> 
> Many of the customs associated with Christmas also took their origins from the heathen obser vances. The exchanging of gifts, extravagant merriment, and lighting of candles all have previous counterparts in the Roman Saturnalia. The use of trees harkens back to the pagan Scandinavian festival of Yule.[5]
> 
> This process of assimilation is characteristic of Roman Catholicism throughout the centuries. Within Roman Catholicism, there is no policy designed to eradicate such heathen practices; rather, the general practice is to foster assimilation by replacing pagan superstitions with similar ecclesiastical institutions. An example of this policy is illustrated by a letter which Pope Gregory wrote to Abbot Mellitus on how to order things in Britain (A.D. 606):
> 
> The temples of the idols among the people should on no account be destroyed. The idols themselves are to be destroyed, but the temples themselves are to be aspersed with holy water, altars set up in them, and relics deposited there. For if these temples are well-built, they must be purified from the worship of demons and dedicated to the service of the true God. In this way, we hope that the people, seeing that their temples are not destroyed, may abandon their error and, flocking more readily to their accustomed resorts, may come to know and adore the true God. And since they have a custom of sacrificing many oxen to demons, let some other solemnity be substituted in its place, such as a day of Dedication or Festivals of the holy martyrs whose relics are enshrined there. On such occasion they might well construct shelters of boughs for themselves around the churches that were once temples, and celebrate the solemnity with devout feasting.[6]
> 
> This is quite a program! The church is encouraged to give the pagans ecclesiastical relics, rites, ceremonies, and festive celebrations as a substitute for their heathen ones. This policy differs greatly from the conduct of the children of God who cut down sacred groves, destroyed the remnants of idolatry, or burned their heathen books in order to make a clean break with pagan ways (Ex. 34:13; Deut. 12:2-4, 29-32; 2Kings 18:4; Acts 19:19).



From your response above, I infer you view this assimilation as a good idea, but trading the sinfullness of pagan festivals for the sinfullness of the mass is a lose-lose situation.


----------



## Philip

Andres said:


> From your response above, I infer you view this assimilation as a good idea, but trading the sinfullness of pagan festivals for the sinfullness of the mass is a lose-lose situation.



You well know that this is not what I am arguing for at all. Further, you are committing the genetic fallacy, which says that because a practice has dubious origins or was used in dubious circumstances, that it should therefore be discarded.

As it is, I don't think your case clear at all. Why can't a former pagan temple be used for Christian worship? Again, I agree that mass/relics/etc are not good, but even so, does this by default make the rededication of a day wrong?



Joshua said:


> worshipping God in a way He hasn't commanded, according to customs and festivals He hasn't commanded, and adopting the ways of worship from the heathen around them.



All right, so what do we do in the meantime? Again, you ignore the real human need (recognized in OT ceremonial law) for festivals and observances. If not Saturnalia, then what?

Also, what of the celebration of Hannukah, a _temple_ (read: liturgical) observance not found in OT law, in which our Lord participated?


----------



## Andres

P. F. Pugh said:


> You well know that this is not what I am arguing for at all.



no I don't. I honestly am not sure what you are arguing, therefore elaboration would be helpful for me.


----------



## Tripel

wtleaver said:


> Tripel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I consider poinsettias to be just as keeping with the RPW as a stained glass window. Neither are elements of worship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting. I personally see a huge distinction. One the one hand you have a pretty window which is part of the building in which the congregation meets to worship, while on the other hand you have a temporary embellishment imported into the worship space at a particular time of the year, which communicates to everyone the approval of a particular "Christian" holiday that is nowhere to be found in scripture, nor the first several centuries of Christian history.
Click to expand...

 
Even though it's a part of the building, a stained glass window is purely decorative. And if decorations are allowed, it seems silly to draw the line at those which are attached to the building itself.

I don't know about your church, but ours places a floral arrangement at the front of the church each week. It is made up of seasonal flowers and greenery. The flowers are purely decorative, just like our stained glass window. In December, we decorate with seasonal things as well.

I don't quite follow your comment about communicating _to everyone the approval of a particular "Christian" holiday that is nowhere to be found in scripture_. Why is it a matter of "approval". Are we approving of Spring when we decorate with lilies in April? Christmas doesn't need anybody's approval. It's simply a cultural holiday and season. 

I realize this is much greater than mere decorations. I'll admit that we talk about "Christmas" in our worship services, and I don't think there's a problem with it. We are under no obligation to refrain from cultural references and current events. The Sunday before election day, we acknowledge that it is voting season and we pray for our country and that God will put into office those he chooses to lead us. The 3rd Sunday of November we devote extra time to prayer of thanksgiving. In late October we talk about the "solas" and sing hymns like A Mighty Fortress. 

The elements of our worship never change despite the season, though certain elements may address culturally significant events. How is that unbiblical? 

It would be one thing if we were passing out presents during a Christmas worship service or were doing an egg hunt in the sanctuary on Easter. Those would be violations of the RPW.


----------



## Philip

Andres said:


> P. F. Pugh said:
> 
> 
> 
> You well know that this is not what I am arguing for at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no I don't. I honestly am not sure what you are arguing, therefore elaboration would be helpful for me.
Click to expand...

 
No one is advocating the mass here.

My point is that arguing "Well, pagans did it" is essentially a _reductio ad Hitlerum_ argument. Just because a practice has been misused (by Pagans/Nazis/etc) does not mean that there is no correct way to use it.


----------



## Grimmson

There a few issues that I have seen in this post that I want to deal with. The first issue is the idea that the practice of Christmas was founded by Roman Catholicism. The Church of Rome in the fourth century did not speak for the entirety of the church, or bind all churches to their doctrine or thoughts. It was not like Roman Catholicism of our day or the day of Trent. Rome did not have full authority for the churches of Constantinople, Antioch, or Jerusalem. All of these churches practiced a Christmas celebration; Constantinople by Gregory Nazianzen and Antioch ( I cant think by who right now) by the mid- fourth century and Jerusalem early fourth century according to Cyril of Jerusalem to my knowledge. We do not know if the origin of Christmas as a festival came from the East or the West, but based on my reading of the early sources am more inclined to think of the East then the West.

The day that Christ was born was of extreme interest to Christians as early as the third century as we can see in Clement of Alexandria’s Stromata I.21, where he also records a group of Gnostics celebrating as a festival of the baptism of Jesus, a practice not that uncommon by the orthodox Christians that I have observed in materials in the late third century and early fourth. 

It has been proposed that the celebration of holidays like Easter or Whitsunday/Pentecost was to replace Old Testament Jewish festivals; just as the Old Law was replaced by the New Law as the Patristic and then Medieval hermeneutic. 

I wanted to throw that out there.

Now I am going to write in regards to Christmas decorations in a church. First it is not an element of worship, which the RPW is concerned with. The RPW are those things that God has said that are essential to our worship that we call elements, and not to introduce new elements to our worship. Simple, non-personal image, decorations is not meant to add mystical experience to worship. The decorations will communicate the approval of celebrating Christmas; therefore if you don’t approve of it in your church then don’t put it up. I think the decorations are put up for two reasons. First, I think it is done because the women of the church want to beautify the building like they would their own home. If a new church was meeting in someone’s home would you expect that person to take down all decorations in his house before the call of worship began? Would you bind such on their conscience regardless if the decorations were Christmas or of anything else? Was such bounded on early Christians when they meant in homes? Secondly I think to create a homey atmosphere for people entering into the building, instead of a dry cold place. This is not to be confused with a seeker sensitive mindset, but instead a desire for a welcoming family-like environment. I do not think wanting to create such a environment is wrong, instead reflects a hospitable nature of those attending the church. And this goes beyond Christmas decorations, to fresh cut flowers in the sanctuary and any proposed decorations, carved, painted, or otherwise in the church that serve the same purpose. Denial of Christmas decorations on the basis of their ascetic nature should likewise be a denial of any decoration in the church. I think some people are a bit to sensitive of their Roman background and that why they may be more likely against the celebration of it in their home or by those who do in their church. A type of Calvinistic cage phase, that their so concerned about purity that the throw out the baby with the bathwater, and not considering what the holiday represents and how this is one of the best and easiest times to proclaim the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. Granted there are people who abuse this time and not talk about the cross or sin, but that goes on year around in many churches, not because of Christmas. It is a great time to educate to children the incarnation, an essential doctrine of our faith. 

Now do I have Christmas decorations up in my home? No. I have no desire for such in my home. When my sister lived with me was there? Yes. If I was married and my wife wanted them up, then I would have such up. 

There needs to be a distinction made between acceptable Christmas decorations and not acceptable. Like Santa being up would not be appropriate anywhere on the church grounds. That not to say that I would be against to telling children of the church the story of Nikolaos of Myra in a Sunday school enviroment. Angels being up could be debatable. Some may say no, because of their sensitive background or be concerned of angelic worship being communicated, while others may think yes looking back to Isaiah’s calling or the shepards scene in Luke. These decisions need to be made by the Elders/Pastor of the church. I would say no to any images of the baby Jesus being up.

Now with that said,

“Merry Christmas to you all!!!”


----------



## wtleaver

Tripel said:


> I don't quite follow your comment about communicating _to everyone the approval of a particular "Christian" holiday that is nowhere to be found in scripture_. Why is it a matter of "approval". Are we approving of Spring when we decorate with lilies in April? Christmas doesn't need anybody's approval. It's simply a cultural holiday and season.



I hope you understand I'm not arguing from an RPW viewpoint, as I have but a cursory understanding of RPW at this point. My initial contribution to this thread was an inquiry of whether the RPW forbade Christmas decorations, and you've answered that. Beyond the scope of that question, I am personally uncomfortable with Christmas because it is not found in scripture, and didn't take hold for several centuries A.D. I believe that everything we need to know to worship God in truth and in spirit is contained in His word. If it were important to know and commemorate the date of Christ's birth, I believe it would have been recorded.

So, while the RPW may not see a distinction between stained glass, flowers and Christmas decor, I do. Neither stained glass nor spring flowers are directly connected with a practice that is controversial among believers. A better comparison would be decorating the church with Easter bunnies in spring and Jack 'o Lanterns in the fall. Would that be as acceptable to you as Christmas decorations? I would hope so, because those are equivalent.


----------



## Grimmson

wtleaver said:


> A better comparison would be decorating the church with Easter bunnies in spring and Jack 'o Lanterns in the fall. Would that be as acceptable to you as Christmas decorations? I would hope so, because those are equivalent.


 
It is not completely equivalent. It is equivalent in relation to the secular season, but not in regards to Christian meaning. 

The reason why Easter bunnies would not be appropriate is because of two reasons. The First being that it does not communicate distinctive Christian truth such as the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The Second being the lie that is communicated with the laying out of candy and eggs for children to find and eat. Jack’o Lanterns are not appropriate because it is still relevant symbol to occultic ideology of dead spirits and demons, which has no part in Christian worship. The reason why I made a distinction between appropriate and not appropriate Christians decorations, is because of what could possibly be communicated, which is why Santa Claus decorations would not have a wise place in a church, under the same guidelines of reason one and two for Easter Bunnies.


----------



## wtleaver

Grimmson said:


> It is not completely equivalent. It is equivalent in relation to the secular season, but not in regards to Christian meaning.



Do garland and poinsettias have Christian meaning that is commonly known? A quick google search suggests Poinsettias may, but I wouldn't have known that. I wonder how many would? I think without any strong, universally known Christian meaning behind them, they are equivalent to the bunnies and carved pumpkins.


----------



## Grimmson

wtleaver said:


> Grimmson said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not completely equivalent. It is equivalent in relation to the secular season, but not in regards to Christian meaning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do garland and poinsettias have Christian meaning that is commonly known? A quick google search suggests Poinsettias may, but I wouldn't have known that. I wonder how many would? I think without any strong, universally known Christian meaning behind them, they are equivalent to the bunnies and carved pumpkins.
Click to expand...

 
Like many things that goes on in churches, there a developed tradition. Such occurs also in Christian Christmas symbols and decoration. In the southwest, Poinsettias and luminaries are well know and the tradition of their usage has been passed down with the family. The problem today is that some of that tradition is not necessarily handed down and such decorations start to lose their symbolic value. It just done because it has always been done and it looks nice. The lose of understanding such traditions from a historical standpoint is a shame. Such is the case with the history of the garland, which I only know a little on. It was a common form of decoration that has been observed in several cultures. It was used as decorations in wedding, and decoration of showing personal respect to a person, like with a Hawaiian lei when you get on the island, or an idol deity, within a pagan context. Interesting enough, the word liv-yat from Hebrew is translated into English as garland and wreath, as seen in translations of Proverbs 1:9 and 4:9 in ESV and NASB. Garlands being somewhat wide spread culturally, even though they may differ in name, color coordination, size and so on I do not have to much of a problem seeing it applied in churches as a decoration. I couldn’t say when Christians started to use it in relation to Christmas, without doing some much needed research on it. But one must remember that we as Christians have always integrated part of our own culture either knowingly or not into our religious life, such as with wedding ceremonies and festivals. The same is true with how we even conduct our worship services today as circumstances. 

If universally known traditions and meaning is really want you want to go after then you may be in trouble. Christmas universally in the church has been accepted for over 1600 years. We may not necessarily look at the Puritans in this case because they were responded primarily against Rome and the Anglican compromisers. Also if your married, look at your hand. You should see a wedding band, which Puritans were against because of its connection with Rome. Does that make wedding rings bad? No, they are a good cultural symbol for marriage. There are a ton of practices that am sure you do that the early church would look down on you over, such as eating meat that has not been properly drained of its blood as we can see in Tertullian’s Apology or in the second century debates. So be weary of some type of universally known tradition regardless of the subject. 

If meaning of a tradition is lost, then we need to examine that tradition to see why it was lost and with wisdom consider if it would be positive to communicate the reason of the tradition instead of just going through the motions or just throwing it out all together. And I think my two main reasons for why the Easter Bunny and pumpkins should not be in churches still stand as compared to other Christian Christmas decoration; but it must be approached with wisdom.


----------



## Wannabee

What was this thread about? I forgot. 






I'm sure one of the ladies will put up some sort of garland, some pine cones and something red here and there. As long as it's just decoration and doesn't "say" anything, I have more important things to worry about.

The missus asked if we could get a tree. I told her under 2 feet and we can't decorate it. I suppose we could have one and decorate it if we hung it upside down.


----------



## Semiomniscient

Joshua said:


> P. F. Pugh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not just Rome, the whole church (aside from the Persian/Assyrian churches) adopted this festival.
> 
> The thing was, it was recognized that either a) the Church could do nothing and people would continue to celebrate the pagan festival or b) the Church could hold its own celebration that would infuse old symbols with new meaning. The Church recognized that as human beings, we need traditions and holidays, if only for focal points of our years. The choice was either to tolerate the pagan celebrations (or suppress---in which case, people would probably celebrate in secret) or to provide an alternative that celebrated something worth celebrating.
> 
> 
> 
> Which is no different from Aaron appeasing the Israelites with the golden calf he'd fashioned from their belongings that they said were their gods who'd brought them out of Egypt. He thought he'd "sanctify" their false worship by making it a feast unto the Lord. 2nd Commandment idolatry. worshipping God in a way He hasn't commanded, according to customs and festivals He hasn't commanded, and adopting the ways of worship from the heathen around them.
Click to expand...

 
I really think this is over-reaching. It's not worship of a false god to appease the people. It's the allowance of cultural traditions based in heathen religious worship, whilst doing away with the heathen worship and righting the Object of worship. All days belong to God, no days belong to false gods. The Church declaring that such festivities be done only in the honor of the True God and not false gods is the practical yet imperfect way of dealing with the trouble. It was the best option available. 
If we were to do away with all pagan-based influences in our lives, the Latin-speakers couldn't use "Deus" for God because it relates directly from "Zeus" a pagan god. It's cultural transformation. I really can't see the strict vehemence against it. Maybe I just refuse to acknowledge that any days or seasonal traditions ought to go back to false gods as though they were due any acknowledgment at all.


----------



## Philip

Joshua said:


> Pray, do tell, where do you see the Lord participating in Hannukah?



So why was Jesus in Jerusalem in John 10:22 if not for the feast? The implication of the text is that this was why He was there?



Joshua said:


> Uhh... you're comparing Ceremonial LAW with man-manufactured "holy" days?



I don't see anything holier about Christmas than about any other holiday except for the fact, maybe, that the object and focus of it is holier than that of, say, the 4th of July.

The comparison is only to say that God commanded the feasts in part because as humans, we have a need to observe, at least, the passing of the seasons. Would you have an objection if, for instance, we simply read from different passages of Scripture every week corporately in a set rotation? Is there something non-circumstantial about holding an extra service of public worship at certain times?


----------



## Semiomniscient

Joshua said:


> Semiomniscient said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not worship of a false god to appease the people. It's the allowance of cultural traditions based in heathen religious worship, whilst doing away with the heathen worship and righting the Object of worship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is co-opting heathen worship for the Christian God. It is worshipping God in a way that He has not commanded, which is to what the 2nd Commandment pertains.
Click to expand...

 
But we are allowed cultural feast-days and cultural celebrations. But we're not allowed to tie those otherwise acceptable events to the only Living God?


----------



## Philip

> Acknowledging man-made "holy" days is not commanded and, thereby, is forbidden.



Would such acknowledgment constitute an element of worship?



Joshua said:


> It is an assumption that he celebrated or otherwise participated in Hannukah. The text says, nor implies, such a thing. However, what better opportunity to be amongst the crowds to preach the good news?



Was Jesus a Jew or wasn't He? It seems to me that this would have been an issue in His ministry had He not participated. Why does John mention it if Jesus was not a participant? If our Lord were not a participant, don't you think that the Gospel might mention it? Silence, in this case, would seem to indicate the ordinariness of Christ, not that He was exceptional in this regard.


----------



## Semiomniscient

Joshua said:


> Semiomniscient said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Semiomniscient said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not worship of a false god to appease the people. It's the allowance of cultural traditions based in heathen religious worship, whilst doing away with the heathen worship and righting the Object of worship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is co-opting heathen worship for the Christian God. It is worshipping God in a way that He has not commanded, which is to what the 2nd Commandment pertains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But we are allowed cultural feast-days and cultural celebrations. But we're not allowed to tie those otherwise acceptable events to the only Living God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If God ordered steak for His worship, He doesn't want us bringing our favorite Tacos.
Click to expand...

 
I don't think this analogy really works. I'm not advocating changing the order of worship in the congregation. I think that coming together on Christmas Day to celebrate the Incarnation of the Holy One is preferable, rather than leave it be a cultural institution-only. 
I do not think that there is anything inherently evil in decorating one's house with fir trees, tinsel, holly, nutcrackers, and all those lovely ornaments (Albeit, I DO see the problem with Nativity scenes that depict the infant Lord). Because there is nothing inherently evil in these decorations, why can't it be the surrounding atmosphere in which we celebrate one of the greatest miracles in history? We aren't offering sacrifices to pagan non-gods, or practicing rituals in honor of spirits by enjoying the smell of douglas firs or the sight of holly or garland or lights. Nor in giving gifts to our family and friends--as long as we do so with the right heart. I think what is truly insidious is the idea that simple cultural practice is the practice of paganism. Many, many of our cultural practices and doings come from cultures with whom we do not share a faith. Linguistically, the very words used in the Scriptures to refer to the True God were used as the names and titles of false gods. This is cultural borrowing to the extreme in my opinion. It might not be a perfect example for this instance, but it does seem to suggest that just because something is once tied to pagan cultures and pagan gods, it does NOT mean that it can never be reclaimed, redirected, and used for glorifying the True God.
Thus, unless you have something against decorations in church in general, I would say that garland and red ribbons are not completely inappropriate in the sanctuary. At very least this would be a matter that would be left to one's conscience.


----------

