# The RPW and Nativity Scenes



## Marrow Man (Nov 19, 2008)

We already have a thread about the RPW and Christmas going, but I was wondering about the thoughts of others with regard to Nativity scenes. Sometimes I just want to bounce my thinking off other Reformed-minded folks just to make sure that I'm not going all TR on everyone.

It seems to me that there are at least two problems with Nativity scenes:

1) An image of Christ is obviously being used, and this is a violation of the 2nd Commandment (as stipulated in WLC Q. 109).

2) Most Nativity scenes teach more than one minor error in that they have three Magi arriving on the night of Jesus' birth.

Now, it might be entirely possible to get around both of these problems. For instance, having an "empty" manger is possible. Also, the Magi can be left out of the scene entirely.

I would like to leave out Nativity scenes entirely, but we have the additional problem at my church of having a hand-carved set purchased in Israel being donated to the church years ago by a beloved member of the congregation who has now gone to be with the Lord (one reason that churches should accept such things, but that's another soapbox for another day). A brother on the PB reminded me the other day that we need to carefully pick the hills we are willing to die on, and this is one that requires careful consideration.

What say you all? Any helpful thoughts on this issue? Any similar experiences?


----------



## N. Eshelman (Nov 19, 2008)

Marrow Man said:


> We already have a thread about the RPW and Christmas going, but I was wondering about the thoughts of others with regard to Nativity scenes. Sometimes I just want to bounce my thinking off other Reformed-minded folks just to make sure that I'm not going all TR on everyone.
> 
> It seems to me that there are at least two problems with Nativity scenes:
> 
> ...



I think that point 1 is the real issue. Point 2 may not be right, but it illustrates what was going on when the King of Heaven and Earth was born of woman. 

As for the sensitivity of the issue regarding putting out the set- yes. When emotions are involved you should be very slow and careful in reformation. You will not be able to do much reforming if you are selling shoes at Payless because your session thought you were moving too quickly. 

1. Get the session on board this year and do not bring it up to the congregation. 
2. Next year either have a pamphlet or sermon that is endorsed by the session and not JUST you. 
3. Teach the congregation why this violates the 2nd commandment. 

Maybe next year or the year after you can keep it in the box.


----------



## Marrow Man (Nov 19, 2008)

Very wise thoughts from a not-yet-but-soon-to-be pastor. Thanks!

For the record, I thought I was moving slowly, but apparently even a snail's pace is too quick for some. Pray that I would be faithful yet loving to an otherwise wonderful and gentle flock.


----------



## Hippo (Nov 19, 2008)

I quit my previous church over this issue. How can you have a plastic doll portraying the eternal God in a worship service?

What I could not accept was not the nativity scene but that the pastor would not even engage with my concerns surrounding the portrail of Jesus. 

You really do not have to sign up to the RPW to have a problem with this.


----------



## Marrow Man (Nov 19, 2008)

Hippo said:


> I quit my previous church over this issue. How can you have a plastic doll portraying the eternal God in a worship service?
> 
> What I could not accept was not the nativity scene but that the pastor would not even engage with my concerns surrounding the portrail of Jesus.
> 
> You really do not have to sign up to the RPW to have a problem with this.



Good observations, especially your comment in the first paragraph. Let me add a caveat though: this nativity scene is not placed in the sanctuary and is not visible during the worship service. Also, last year (my first year at the church), I requested that the Magi and the baby not be used. They were left out, but some people apparently complained, though not directly to me.


----------



## N. Eshelman (Nov 19, 2008)

Marrow Man said:


> Hippo said:
> 
> 
> > I quit my previous church over this issue. How can you have a plastic doll portraying the eternal God in a worship service?
> ...



If they are not complaining to you- then who cares? My pastor (Ray Lanning) has taught me that if someone does not have the ability to bring a complaint to your face that you do not be troubled by the nay sayers. Same for anonymous letters- if its not signed, its put in the trash. 

Words to live by!


----------



## Marrow Man (Nov 19, 2008)

Some are complaining -- the problem is that too many folks are letting the few squeaky wheels have too much attention and feeding off that. I had a meeting with some this evening and cleared some air with regard to many of these issues.

But Ray is right -- boy is he right! What the world calls passive-aggressive (and the Bible calls "fear of man") should be allowed to triumph. Thanks.


----------



## Honor (Nov 20, 2008)

Ok... please don't stone me... I say this in all due respect. But don't you think that you _could_ be being a bit too legalistic and you are trying to bind everyone to your conscience? I have just never heard of a christian not liking a nativity scene.


----------



## nicnap (Nov 20, 2008)

Honor said:


> Ok... please don't stone me... I say this in all due respect. But don't you think that you _could_ be being a bit too legalistic and you are trying to bind everyone to your conscience? I have just never heard of a christian not liking a nativity scene.



I think that what is the issue on this is the second commandment...it isn't a matter of liberty at all. Now, if it were , "Should we have a wet bar in the fellowship hall?"...that would be a matter of liberty.


----------



## Marrow Man (Nov 20, 2008)

Honor, I would simply say that the matter is not one of indifference, as it is a violation of the second commandment (making an image) as spelled out in the WLC Q. 109:



> What sins are forbidden in the second commandment? The sins forbidden in the second commandment are, all devising, counseling, commanding, using, and any wise approving, any religious worship not instituted by God himself; t_he making any representation of God, of all or of any of the three persons, either inwardly in our mind, or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature whatsoever_; all worshipping of it, or God in it or by it; the making of any representation of feigned deities, and all worship of them, or service belonging to them; all superstitious devices, corrupting the worship of God, adding to it, or taking from it, whether invented and taken up of ourselves, or received by tradition from others, though under the title of antiquity, custom, devotion, good intent, or any other pretense whatsoever; simony; sacrilege; all neglect, contempt, hindering, and opposing the worship and ordinances which God hath appointed.



Therefore, it is not simply the binding of consciences according to one person's opinion, but a matter agreed upon by a council of godly men which all united with a Presbyterian church have agreed is founded on the word of God and that ministers and elders affirm is an expression of their own faith. I do not understand how a minister or elder who takes such a vow can be indifferent toward it or teach contrary to it. It is almost as if there is no fear of God on the issue. And I will quote again my brother's comments above:



> How can you have a plastic doll portraying the eternal God in a worship service?



The Magi thing is quite a bit grayer, however. I think it teaches error (though only a minor point). As proof of my point, I asked one morning in SS class, "How many 'wisemen' visited Jesus on the night of His birth?" The overwhelming response was, "Three!" I, of course, then had to explain that no number is given and that they almost certainly did not arrive until some time later.


----------



## he beholds (Nov 20, 2008)

Honor said:


> Ok... please don't stone me... I say this in all due respect. But don't you think that you _could_ be being a bit too legalistic and you are trying to bind everyone to your conscience? *I have just never heard of a christian not liking a nativity scene.*



My grandma gave us a nativity scene one year and my husband threw the "baby Jesus" in the garbage. 
(I mean no disrespect for the true Christ by calling that plastic doll a baby Jesus, hence the lack of capitalization and the quotes. But if that does still sound disrespectful, please tell me and I will delete this post!)


----------



## N. Eshelman (Nov 20, 2008)

he beholds said:


> Honor said:
> 
> 
> > Ok... please don't stone me... I say this in all due respect. But don't you think that you _could_ be being a bit too legalistic and you are trying to bind everyone to your conscience? *I have just never heard of a christian not liking a nativity scene.*
> ...



That is TOO FUNNY! I love it.


----------



## Marrow Man (Nov 20, 2008)

> But if that does still sound disrespectful ...



No more disrespectful than this:



> [Moses] took the calf which they had made and burned it with fire, and ground it to powder, and scattered it over the surface of the water and made the sons of Israel drink it. (Exodus 32:20)



The "baby Jesus" was no more the Lord of Glory than the golden calf was YHWH.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Nov 20, 2008)

Marrow Man said:


> > But if that does still sound disrespectful ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...




That is a good verse for us to remember. The calf was not representing some other god. The calf represented YHWH. Aaron even says that this is the god that delivered you from Egypt. 

"baby Jesus" has become so commercialized that society considers the idea of a nativity scene an unalienable right and requirement for all Christians.


----------



## Marrow Man (Nov 20, 2008)

Chaplainintraining said:


> "baby Jesus" has become so commercialized that society considers the idea of a nativity scene an unalienable right and requirement for all Christians.



You are correct, sir. It's so persuasive that it has become the "default" position. If you object to Nativity scenes in any way, it is almost as if you are being anti-Christian.

When I expressed these concerns (and our denominational standards) to a lady at the church, she asked, "So Christians have been having Nativity scenes for 2000 years and they've been wrong all this time?" To which I had to point out that they had not been around for anywhere near that long (the first nativity scene appears to have been "invented" in the early 1200s by Francis of Assissi; the first "modern" nativity scene came about post-Reformation through the Jesuits in the 1560s -- I neglected to tell her it was RC in origin). This is what I mean by the perception that it is the "default" position.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Nov 20, 2008)

Pretty much in the same way the rapture has become the default system. 

When I started showing my wife how the rapture came about in the past 150 years or so and how other systems of thought are much older. She was shocked and felt betrayed for being lied to her entire life.


----------



## Kim G (Nov 21, 2008)

I must confess that two years ago, being my first Christmas season apart from my family, I crafted my own nativity scene out of clay, including a baby wrapped up and in a manger. I had never even considered the 2nd commandment until I joined the PB this year. Now I'm ashamed to think that I fashioned such a thing. I know it's somewhere in my box of Christmas decorations, and with my wonderful husband's blessing, it will be going in the trash this year.


----------



## YXU (Nov 21, 2008)

Me, too. My wife is an artist, she spent about 18 months finishing Da Vinci's Last Supper on a piece of cloth, shortly after it was done and framed well. We came to the conviction of sin of hanging such thing on the wall. So we took it off immediately, how ignorant we are to the law of God.


----------



## pilgrim3970 (Nov 21, 2008)

Marrow Man said:


> We already have a thread about the RPW and Christmas going, but I was wondering about the thoughts of others with regard to Nativity scenes. Sometimes I just want to bounce my thinking off other Reformed-minded folks just to make sure that I'm not going all TR on everyone.
> 
> It seems to me that there are at least two problems with Nativity scenes:
> 
> ...




I could see leaving the Magi out because they weren't there the actual night of Jesus' birth. However, I think that if you are going to leave the infant Christ out, better not to put it up at all.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Nov 21, 2008)

Heidelberg Catechism:



> Question 98. But may not images be tolerated in the churches, as books to the laity?
> 
> Answer: No: for we must not pretend to be wiser than God, who will have his people taught, not by dumb images, but by the lively preaching of his word.


----------

