Christmas Tree Poll
- Thread starter ReederKidsMom
- Start date
- Status
Careful what you wish for; you may be found out.OH I know I may lose my Puritan card for this one.
But, I am all in favor of remembering God's wondrous acts of deliverance for the children of men!
The Israelites had smooth stones in rivers, and altars set up at Bethel, and Passover and the Sabbath.
The Christian has the Lord's Day, the sacraments, Christmas, Good Friday, Easter, Ascension Day and the whole Schmeer. Yes, it is truly a horrible thing to thank God for his wondrous acts to the children of men.
Save the Puritan arguments, I know them all! Maybe because I grew up Dutch Reformed, I am therefore tainted by the festive spirit. We just aren't quite pure enough for some folk!
While you all are, like my dear friend Jonathan Edwards wrote in his journal for Dec 25, "listless, dull, and dry" (or words to that effect), I will be merrymaking!
Okay, hurl your insults now: why, I may just be found to be a Lutheran!
One man has days, the other esteems every day alike.
But, at least I'll be a happy, warm, toasty, and celebrative Lutheran!
Since you say Ken, I know you know this, but for everybody else, if we don’t distinguish worship that is appointed by God and that by men, or that wherein we have no liberty to make appointment and that wherein men do regarding some circumstances about worship, we abandon the reformed regulative principle; this from a Scots Presbyterian Puritan:English Popish Ceremonies 1.7, pp. 31-36.
That Festival Days Take Away Our Liberty, Which God Has Given Us, Proved; And First Out Of The Law.
That Festival Days Take Away Our Liberty, Which God Has Given Us, Proved; And First Out Of The Law.
Sect. 1
Snip… See full chapter at http://www.naphtali.com/GGhodays1.htm
Sect. 4
Yet we must hear what the Bishop can say against our proposition: If under the law (he says) God did not spoil his people of liberty, when he appointed them to rest two days at Pasche, one at Whitsunday, etc., how can the king's majesty and the church be esteemed to spoil us of our liberty, that command a cessation from labor on three days? etc.6 O horrible blasphemy! O double deceitfulness! Blasphemy, because so much power is ascribed to the king and the church over us, as God had over his people of old. God did justly command his people under the law, to rest from labor on other days beside the Sabbath, without wronging them; therefore the king and the church may as justly, and with doing as little wrong, command us to rest likewise, because God, by a ceremonial law, did hinder his people from the use of so much liberty, as the moral law did give them; therefore the king and the church may do so also. Deceitfulness, in that he says God did not spoil his people of liberty, etc. We know that, by appointing them to rest on those days, God did not take away liberty from his people, simply and absolutely, because they had no more liberty than he did allow to them by his laws, which he gave by the hand of Moses, yet he did take away that liberty which one part of his laws did permit to them, viz., the fourth commandment of the moral law, which permitted them to labor six days. The Bishop knew that this question in hand has not to do with liberty, in the general notion of it, but with liberty which the moral law does permit. We say, then, that God took away from his people Israel some of the liberty which his moral law permitted to them, because he was the Lawgiver and Lord of the Law; and that the king and the church cannot do the like with us, because they are no more lords over God's law, than the people who are set under them.
Sect. 5
But he has yet more to say against us: If the king (he says) may command a cessation from economical and private works, for works civil and public, such as the defense of the crown, the liberty of the country, etc., what reason have you why he may not enjoin a day of cessation from all kind of bodily labor, for the honor of God and exercise of religion? etc. ANSWER. This kind of reasoning is most vicious, for three respects: 1. It supposes that he who may command a cessation from one kind of labor, upon one of the six days, may also command a cessation from all kind of labor, but there is a difference; for the law of God has allowed us to labor six days of every week, which liberty no human power can take from us. But we cannot say that the law of God allows us six days of every week to economical and private works (for then we should never be bound to put our hands to a public work), whence it comes that the magistrate has power left him to command a cessation from some labor, but not from all. 2. The Bishop reasons from a cessation from ordinary labor for extraordinary labor, to a cessation from ordinary labor for no labor; for they who use their weapons for the defense of the crown, or liberty of the country, do not cease from labor, but only change ordinary labor into extraordinary, and private labor into public, whereas our opposites plead for a cessation from all labor upon their holidays. 3. He skips de genere in genus [from type to type], because the king may command a cessation for civil works; therefore he may command a holy rest for the exercise of religion, as if he had so great power in sacred as in civil things.
Sect. 6
The Bishop has yet a third dart to throw at us: If the church (he says)7 has power, upon occasional motives, to appoint occasional fasts or festivities, may not she, for constant and eternal blessings, which do infinitely excel all occasional benefits, appoint ordinary times of commemoration or thanksgiving? ANSWER. There are two reasons for which the church may and should appoint fasts or festivities upon occasional motives, and neither of them agrees with ordinary festivities. 1. Extraordinary fasts, either for obtaining some great blessing, or averting some great judgment, are necessary means to be used in such cases; likewise, extraordinary festivities are necessary testifications [testimonies] of our thankfulness for the benefits which we have impetrate [procured] by our extraordinary fasts; but ordinary festivities, for constant and eternal blessings, have no necessary use. The celebration of set anniversary days is no necessary mean for conserving the commemoration of the benefits of redemption, because we have occasion, not only every Sabbath day, but every other day, to call to mind these benefits, either in hearing, or reading, or meditating upon God's word. I esteem and judge that the days consecrated to Christ must be lifted, says Danæus: Christ is born, is circumcised, dies, rises again for us every day in the preaching of the Gospel.8
2. God has given his church a general precept for extraordinary fasts (Joel 1:14; 2:15), as likewise for extraordinary festivities to praise God, and to give him thanks in the public assembly of his people, upon the occasional motive of some great benefit which, by the means of our fasting and praying, we have obtained (Zech. 8:19 with 7:3). If it is said that there is a general command for set festivities, because there is a command for preaching and hearing the word, and for praising God for his benefits; and there is no precept for particular fasts more than for particular festivities, I answer: Albeit there is a command for preaching and hearing the word, and for praising God for his benefits, yet is there no command (no, not in the most general generality) for annexing these exercises of religion to set anniversary days more than to other days; whereas it is plain that there is a general command for fasting and humiliation at some times more than at other times.
And as for particularities, all the particular causes, occasions, and times of fasting could not be determined in Scripture, because they are infinite, as Camero says.9 But all the particular causes of set festivities, and the number of the same, might have been easily determined in Scripture, since they are not, nor may not be infinite; for the Bishop himself acknowledges that to appoint a festival day for every week cannot stand with charity, the inseparable companion of piety.10 And albeit so many were allowable, yet who sees not how easily the Scripture might have comprehended them, because they are set, constant, and anniversary times, observed for permanent and continuing causes, and not moveable or mutable, as fasts which are appointed for occurring causes, and therefore may be infinite.
I conclude that, since God's word has given us a general command for occasional fasts, and likewise particularly determined sundry things about the causes, occasions, nature, and manner of fastings, we may well say with Cartwright,11 that days of fasting are appointed at such times, and upon such occasions, as the Scripture does set forth; wherein because the church commands nothing, but that which God commands, the religious observation of them falls unto the obedience of the fourth commandment, as well as of the seventh day itself.
Sect. 7
The Bishop presses us with a fourth argument, taken from the calling of people in great towns from their ordinary labors to divine service,12 which argument Tilen also beats upon.13
ANSWER. There is huge difference between the rest which is enjoined upon anniversary festivities, and the rest which is required during the time of the weekly meetings for divine worship. For 1. Upon festival days, rest from labor is required all the day over, whereas, upon the days of ordinary and weekly meetings, rest is required only during the time of public worship.
2. Cessation from labor, for prayers or preaching on those appointed days of the week, at some occasions may be omitted; but the rest and commemoration appointed by the church, to be precisely observed upon the anniversary festival days, must not be omitted, in the Bishop's judgment.14
3. Men are straitly commanded and compelled to rest from labor upon holidays; but to leave work to come to the ordinary weekly meetings, they are only exhorted. And here I mark how the Bishop contradicts himself; for in one place where his antagonist maintains truly, that the craftsman cannot be lawfully commanded nor compelled to leave his work and to go to public divine service, except on the day that the Lord has sanctified, he replies, If he may be lawfully commanded to cease from his labor during the time of divine service, he may be as lawfully compelled to obey the command.15 Who can give these words any sense, or see anything in them said against his antagonist's position, except he be taken to say, that the craftsman may be both commanded and compelled to leave his work and go to divine service on the week-days appointed for the same? Nay, he labors to prove thus much out of the ninth head of the First Book of Discipline, which says, In great towns we think expedient, that every day there be either sermon or common prayers, etc., where there is nothing of compulsion, or a forcing command, only there is an exhortation. But ere the Bishop has said much, he forgets himself, and tells us,16 that it were against equity and charity to astrict [bind] the husbandman to leave his plough so oft as the days of weekly preaching do return, but that, on the festival days, reason would that, if he did not leave his plough willingly, by authority he should be forced. Which place confirms this difference which we give between rest on the holidays and rest at the times of weekly meeting.
Footnotes (see complete bibliography for EPC for details on books and authors)
6. Ubi supra. 7. Ib. p. 26, 27. 8. Apud. Bald., de Cas. Consc., lib. 2, cap. 12, cas. 1. Dies Christo dicatos tollendos existimo judicoque, says Danæus: quotidie nobis in evangelii prædicatione nascitur, circumciditur, moritur, resurgit Christus. 9. Præl., tom. 1, de Potest. Eccl., contr. 2. 10. Ubi supra, p. 16. 11. Ag. the Rhem. annot. on Gal. 4:10. 12. Ubi supra, p. 16, l7. 13. Paran. ad Sco., cap.16, p. 64. 14. Ubi supra, p. 25. 15. Ibid., p. 17. 16. Ibid., p. 27.
caddy
Puritan Board Senior
Well said Joshua
I particularly like this portion of the argument:
"I think its a small step between having family over, egg nog, cookies, big meals, etc., and a tree. Its certainly far from the spirit of "protest", isn't it? If you truly wanted to avoid it, I would think you wouldn't run the risk of people misinterpreting you by having a festive gathering at your house (the timing of which was suspiciously similar to Xmas parties)."
Tell me you are doing absolutely nothing at all or it all just seems to breakdown.
I particularly like this portion of the argument:
"I think its a small step between having family over, egg nog, cookies, big meals, etc., and a tree. Its certainly far from the spirit of "protest", isn't it? If you truly wanted to avoid it, I would think you wouldn't run the risk of people misinterpreting you by having a festive gathering at your house (the timing of which was suspiciously similar to Xmas parties)."
Tell me you are doing absolutely nothing at all or it all just seems to breakdown.
The Regulative Principle is often a waxen nose - it can be shaped in many ways. I have yet to see two brothers consistently apply it the same way (maybe the topic of another thread)....
Napthtali Press; did you celebrate your birthday this year? And last year? Your anniversary every year?
Napthtali Press; did you celebrate your birthday this year? And last year? Your anniversary every year?
KenPierce
Puritan Board Freshman
My basic argument for the observance of days is this.
The RPW dictates how we may approach God, not when.
May the Christian only worship corporately on the Lord's Day?
(Did the Jews only go to temple on the Sabbath?)
Then, believers could never gather in homes for study, etc.
Christians must gather on the Lord's Day. Christians may gather on other days.
WHen Christians gather, is it ever wrong to focus on a particular act of God in the salvation of men?
If so, it would be wrong ever to center a service (by reading, preaching, song and prayer) on the incarnation, the crucifixion, etc.
If it isn't wrong to center a service on those things, why is it wrong to do so on commonly recognized days?
If holidays must be instituted by direct command of God, and (so the argument goes), we don't have such institutions in the New Testament, then was Purim an illegitimate holiday for the Jewish church-state?
I understand what the Reformers and Puritans were protesting; the keeping of days of obligation, yet more meritorious works in the Catholic complex of self-salvation.
But, I hardly see a low Anglican or a Lutheran arguing that keeping Christmas merits anything before God. It is rather, for them (and for many who bear the name Presbyterian, with this one aberration), a day of remembrance for God's saving work.
Yes, I know the Lord's Day is that. But, truly, for the Christian, must not every day be that --a day of worship? Apparently Calvin thought so, as he held services every day of the week.
The RPW dictates how we may approach God, not when.
May the Christian only worship corporately on the Lord's Day?
(Did the Jews only go to temple on the Sabbath?)
Then, believers could never gather in homes for study, etc.
Christians must gather on the Lord's Day. Christians may gather on other days.
WHen Christians gather, is it ever wrong to focus on a particular act of God in the salvation of men?
If so, it would be wrong ever to center a service (by reading, preaching, song and prayer) on the incarnation, the crucifixion, etc.
If it isn't wrong to center a service on those things, why is it wrong to do so on commonly recognized days?
If holidays must be instituted by direct command of God, and (so the argument goes), we don't have such institutions in the New Testament, then was Purim an illegitimate holiday for the Jewish church-state?
I understand what the Reformers and Puritans were protesting; the keeping of days of obligation, yet more meritorious works in the Catholic complex of self-salvation.
But, I hardly see a low Anglican or a Lutheran arguing that keeping Christmas merits anything before God. It is rather, for them (and for many who bear the name Presbyterian, with this one aberration), a day of remembrance for God's saving work.
Yes, I know the Lord's Day is that. But, truly, for the Christian, must not every day be that --a day of worship? Apparently Calvin thought so, as he held services every day of the week.
non dignus
Puritan Board Sophomore
I love the smell of a fresh cut tree.
KenPierce
Puritan Board Freshman
JColleen,
Is meat offered to idols anything? Are people's weak consciences offended by the use of the Christmas tree? I remain unconvinced.
Should we stop using rainbows because one particularly vile interest group has appropriated that symbol to itself?
Is it true, or is it just legend that Luther brought back the Christmas tree?
If my children start attributing religious significance to the tree, then I'll stop using it.
Is meat offered to idols anything? Are people's weak consciences offended by the use of the Christmas tree? I remain unconvinced.
Should we stop using rainbows because one particularly vile interest group has appropriated that symbol to itself?
Is it true, or is it just legend that Luther brought back the Christmas tree?
If my children start attributing religious significance to the tree, then I'll stop using it.
PresReformed
Puritan Board Freshman
Paul never offered meet to an idol, nor did he argue that it was okay to. Paul speaks of eating meat offered to idols, he doesn't speak of liberty to participate in the pagan ritual of offering meat to idols. Do you see the difference? Participating in pagan rituals and calling it "cultural" or "innocent" is not in line with the principle Paul is teaching. We are to separate ourselves from superstition or the appearance of evil, not justify participating in pagan festivals in the name of Christ. That is what the RC Church pretended to do with the Christ Mass, Easter and Halloween.
I never put one up, because I don't enjoy dead trees. The Russian practice of going out into a real forest and sitting all night under a real fur for New Year's might have a point.
But I don't put up any Christmas decorations. I hate the commercialism, the muzak, and the rubbish in the stores that we are supposed to buy and give away just because it is the time of year to inflict junk on other people. I hate Rudolf, his nose, the elves, Santa, and abominable snowman Frosty. I can't stand It's A Wonderful Life or Miracle On Whatever Street. Instead I watch La Buche.
caddy
Puritan Board Senior
LadyFlynt
Inactive User
Ken, again you are presuming that the solstice tree has no religious signifigance in this day and age. I hate to break into your little 1950s something world, but it does and always has. We are a laughing stock as a religious group for allowing it within our circles.
Personally, I could give a flip less what Luther did in regards to the holiday. Luther was not always correct in his approach or thinking. I think highly of the man, but I recognize his failings as a man. And on this subject he was wrong.
Personally, I could give a flip less what Luther did in regards to the holiday. Luther was not always correct in his approach or thinking. I think highly of the man, but I recognize his failings as a man. And on this subject he was wrong.
KenPierce
Puritan Board Freshman
JColleen,
Frankly, I am not too concerned about being a laughingstock by any pagans for any reason, so that is no argument. In my observation of the unbelieving world, they frankly don't care what we do or don't do, and it doesn't make any difference what they think of us. We could bend over backwards to make sure we weren't doing anything to make ourselves a laughingstock, and still be the offscouring of the world, the scum of the earth.
I understand the BIblical argument against keeping days. I happen to disagree with it. I do not, however, understand an argument that says the Christian faith cannot redeem secular symbols or practices, etc. Then, throw out myth and fantasy --no more Lord of the Rings! Throw out fiction, too. --goodbye, Gilead, and farewell Mitford!
Throw out music --according to Genesis, it came from the line of Lamech, right? And, throw out metal working. Oh, yes, and sculpture too. Never mind Bezalel --we know that the pagans developed sculpture to further idolatry --just read Isaiah.
Who created the evergreen? Who put it in man's heart to sculpt, to compose, to write? Because things have been misappropriated is no argument against their use.
Again, start bowing before a tree (or a sculpture), and it is the bowing, and not the sculpture (or tree) that is the problem. Why can we not see that it is the bowing that is the problem????? The sin is in the heart idolizes, and not in what the hands make.
And, I wasn't even around in 1950.
Frankly, I am not too concerned about being a laughingstock by any pagans for any reason, so that is no argument. In my observation of the unbelieving world, they frankly don't care what we do or don't do, and it doesn't make any difference what they think of us. We could bend over backwards to make sure we weren't doing anything to make ourselves a laughingstock, and still be the offscouring of the world, the scum of the earth.
I understand the BIblical argument against keeping days. I happen to disagree with it. I do not, however, understand an argument that says the Christian faith cannot redeem secular symbols or practices, etc. Then, throw out myth and fantasy --no more Lord of the Rings! Throw out fiction, too. --goodbye, Gilead, and farewell Mitford!
Throw out music --according to Genesis, it came from the line of Lamech, right? And, throw out metal working. Oh, yes, and sculpture too. Never mind Bezalel --we know that the pagans developed sculpture to further idolatry --just read Isaiah.
Who created the evergreen? Who put it in man's heart to sculpt, to compose, to write? Because things have been misappropriated is no argument against their use.
Again, start bowing before a tree (or a sculpture), and it is the bowing, and not the sculpture (or tree) that is the problem. Why can we not see that it is the bowing that is the problem????? The sin is in the heart idolizes, and not in what the hands make.
And, I wasn't even around in 1950.
Last edited:
KenPierce
Puritan Board Freshman
Paul never offered meet to an idol, nor did he argue that it was okay to. Paul speaks of eating meat offered to idols, he doesn't speak of liberty to participate in the pagan ritual of offering meat to idols. Do you see the difference? [/QUOTE}
So, what foreign deity are Christians worshipping by having a tree? It is the bowing, and the heart that are the problem. nobody is going around cavorting with temple prostitutes, or worshipping Artemis, and calling it okay. Please.
I would agree with your argument, if it concerned real pagan rituals and real involvement --such as freemasonry, for instance. Nobody is worshipping their Christmas trees. And, simply because Rome redeemed things wrongly is no argument that they cannot, therefore, be redeemed.
KenPierce
Puritan Board Freshman
That is a reductio if ever there were. It would be exceeding unwise for a Christian to wear a pentagram, but again, the pentagram is nothing.
Can a Christian not have a shaved head because of the skinheads, either?
Can a child no longer paint a rainbow because of the militant homosexual movement?
LadyFlynt
Inactive User
Standing up a tree, decorating it, and offering gifts beneath it...yeah, sounds exactly like what the pagans did. Don't try to say the gifts are for others...that's like the pagans offering meat THEN giving it to others. You have a gift, just give it to the person it's intended for, not the tree.
Observation...first we are told that if it's not culturally pagan anymore, it's fair game for a Christian. When pointed out that it IS currently still a pagan practice, it's suddenly "I don't care what the pagans think". However, we are supposed to care about the appearance of evil.
LOTR is a debatative issue amoung the Christian community.
Observation...first we are told that if it's not culturally pagan anymore, it's fair game for a Christian. When pointed out that it IS currently still a pagan practice, it's suddenly "I don't care what the pagans think". However, we are supposed to care about the appearance of evil.
LOTR is a debatative issue amoung the Christian community.
PresReformed
Puritan Board Freshman
So would an instance of this redeeming you speak of be like having a statue of Buddha in your garden for it's artistic value, even though it is an idol that is worshiped by heathens all over the world? Would you wear a pentagram?
LadyFlynt
Inactive User
By the same token it is unwise to put up a tree. Also, when my husband shaved his head, he kept his beard...just for that reason, so as not to be mixed up with skinheads. Rainbows are an act of nature...a child can also draw a tree, doesn't mean we decorate it and give it gifts or assign a man the attributes of God. Neither will I permit my children to fly a rainbow flag due to it's association.
SRoper
Puritan Board Graduate
Actually in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight the pentagram is used as a Christian (well more accurately, Roman) symbol.
With regard to the debate as to whether or not the tree is to be regarded as a pagan symbol or somehow neutral, we should allow the Bible to speak to the issue. Jeremiah 10.1-5
1Hear ye the word which the LORD speaketh unto you, O house of Israel:
2Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them.
3For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe.
4They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not.
5They are upright as the palm tree, but speak not: they must needs be borne, because they cannot go. Be not afraid of them; for they cannot do evil, neither also is it in them to do good.
Now although the motive is different with the modern "Christmas" tree, the Bible clearly shows its pagan origins. It seems ridiculous to me to try to redeem this pagan image any more than Christians should try to "redeem" images of Baal or statues of golden calves.
1Hear ye the word which the LORD speaketh unto you, O house of Israel:
2Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them.
3For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe.
4They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not.
5They are upright as the palm tree, but speak not: they must needs be borne, because they cannot go. Be not afraid of them; for they cannot do evil, neither also is it in them to do good.
Now although the motive is different with the modern "Christmas" tree, the Bible clearly shows its pagan origins. It seems ridiculous to me to try to redeem this pagan image any more than Christians should try to "redeem" images of Baal or statues of golden calves.
gwine
Puritan Board Sophomore
This argument is an old Christmas tradition here on the Puritan Board and I would hate to see it go away. I for one look forward, each year, to drinking eggnog and being accused of cavorting with devils and pushing paganism.
Let's face it Bob, you just like to be in the mosh pit.
PresReformed
Puritan Board Freshman
With regard to the debate as to whether or not the tree is to be regarded as a pagan symbol or somehow neutral, we should allow the Bible to speak to the issue. Jeremiah 10.1-5
1Hear ye the word which the LORD speaketh unto you, O house of Israel:
2Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them.
3For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe.
4They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not.
5They are upright as the palm tree, but speak not: they must needs be borne, because they cannot go. Be not afraid of them; for they cannot do evil, neither also is it in them to do good.
Now although the motive is different with the modern "Christmas" tree, the Bible clearly shows its pagan origins. It seems ridiculous to me to try to redeem this pagan image any more than Christians should try to "redeem" images of Baal or statues of golden calves.
Adam...Jeremiah was my first post in this thread, #28.
Sorry, I guessed I missed that in the flurry of posts. It cannot be claimed that a "Christmas" tree is not an emblem of paganism in light of this verse, In my humble opinion. Pagans still put them in their homes every year.
KenPierce
Puritan Board Freshman
You caught me. I am a closet Asherah worshipper. I make offerings under every spreading tree.
I guess I'd better call my elders together and confess.
Can't you see that the issue is the actual practice of idolatry, not the idols themselves? Idols are nothing, friends, and you are ignoring the real issues of idolatrous hearts by dealing with the form, and not the substance. You are, to paraphrase John Piper, fighting flesh tanks with peashooter regulations.
Whether you celebrate Christmas, or decorate a tree or not is irrelevant to me. It doesn't say anything to me about the sincerity or the Biblical nature of your faith. YOu are free not to do it.
I guess I'd better call my elders together and confess.
Can't you see that the issue is the actual practice of idolatry, not the idols themselves? Idols are nothing, friends, and you are ignoring the real issues of idolatrous hearts by dealing with the form, and not the substance. You are, to paraphrase John Piper, fighting flesh tanks with peashooter regulations.
Whether you celebrate Christmas, or decorate a tree or not is irrelevant to me. It doesn't say anything to me about the sincerity or the Biblical nature of your faith. YOu are free not to do it.
caddy
Puritan Board Senior
Whether you celebrate Christmas, or decorate a tree or not is irrelevant to me. It doesn't say anything to me about the sincerity or the Biblical nature of your faith. YOu are free not to do it.
Amen
- Status
