Rich,
LOOK for opportunities for offense? Are you serious!? Give me a break bro. You have construed and caricatured "protest" as something that has to be carried on in the worst possible manner. Clearly it does not as the advice for the most part shows. The thread was about the "how" after all was it not? And the question was only directed to those convinced it was a question to even be concerned about! Good grief Charlie Brown (yea, that is probably a minced oath; didn't look it up).
OK, I am prone to using hyperbole. Here is the issue as I see it: my hyperbole and the humor represents a difference of
degree and not of
desire. If it were up to the "Non-Christmas Tree-ers" the point of their protest is "knock it off, I have a problem with Christmas and I don't want you celebrating it either...."
This goes to the heart of liberty of conscience. The standard should never be: "Prove to me that you have liberty to do something that I have a problem with...." Rather, the standard is: "Keep your convicted mouth shut unless you have divine warrant to bind the consciences of others with your conviction...."
I have a number of problems with the discussion of Christmas Trees.
1. You think my hyperbole is bad? How about all the other Pharisees calling me an Idolater because I innocuously have a tree in my living room? Yes, I called you Pharisees and you need to knock it off.
2. The genesis of the prohibition against Christmas trees is oft ripped out of its historical context as well as the cry for liberty concerning it. It is one thing to be protesting against being
forced to celebrate a religious festival based on the convictions of others in a State. It is quite another thing to
force other people to
not celebrate a secular custom because you have a problem with it.
3. Secular custom: that's all Christmas and Christmas trees are to most people these days. Assume I'm a Marine walking the ruins of Ancient Babylon (which I have by the way - very cool) and I find a stick under some rubble. The curator says: "Hey thanks for liberating this town. Saddam planted his palace on top of the hill and we're glad to see him gone...." (this is 2003 so they still liked us then after all). In his gratitude he lets me keep the stick. I bring the stick home and display it on my wall as some cool looking stick. Years later, some professor of Middle Easter antiquity visits my home for dinner and remarks: "Wow! Where
did you get that Asherah Pole?!
The question is: Was I an idolater because I had a pole in my house that was once worshipped by people a few thousand years ago?
That question comes up after all in the Epistles and Paul tells people that its OK to eat meat that, within their own lifetime, they once attached religious significance to.
It drives me nuts how some Presbyterians like to dig up old texts and learn stuff from folks and quote Puritans like they're quoting Scripture, out of historical context, and then be like the curator that's telling people that their trees are pagan symbols as if they symbolism adheres to the tree itself! It almost seems like some are digging in old texts looking for things to be more scrupulous about. One day I have a tree with lights but I'm not content to live with the liberty of conscience to have a tree with lights in my house, I need to find a Puritan tell me that it's an idol so I can take away something that was once indifferent.
Of course, I'm not content to stop there. Now that it's my conviction, I need to tell everybody in the Church what I learned about Christmas Trees. I want to make sure they don't have liberty either now that it's become a scruple for me. In ever larger concentric circles, I want to go to the pagan himself and bind his conscience with the same conviction.
Give me a break!
4. The larger issue is what "rights" do we have to bind others' consciences with our convictions. If they're Biblical then it is up to the Church to declare such convictions as they comport with the Scriptures. It is not enough to cite Gillespie. If you're going to bind the consciences of believers to say that a tree with lights is idolatry then you need to present the Scriptural case and not merely point to a historical abuse of the symbol as if everybody is still living in the 16th Century and being put in the stocks for refusing to celebrate Christmas in their Churches.
As an
individual however among other believers, you have the liberty within your own conscience to be convicted that
for you it is sin. For other believers - YOU NEED TO KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT. Do you suppose the Jews might have had a
problem with the Gentiles bringing Chitlins to Church meals? The
stronger brethren (in this case the GENTILES and not the Jews) should not flaunt their liberty if they know it offended the Jews or caused them to sin. BUT, the Jews had no right to turn around and bind the conscience of the Gentiles with their convictions - THAT is Pharasaism and we should WITHSTAND THAT SPIRIT TO ITS FACE.
IN CONCLUSION:
If you have a conviction that Christmas Trees are a sin for you then for you it is sin. You are the weaker brother and I will not flaunt my liberty and wear Christmas garb in your home. BUT DON'T YOU DARE think that you have any right before God to bind the conscience of a man where the Word has left it free. In so doing you are denying the Gospel of Christ and I suggest you read Calvin's commentary on Romans 14.