Christmas Tree Poll

[Kevin]

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.

 

[ADKing]

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.

Rev. Pierce, of course you are correct that the most important issue is the practice/non-practice of idolatry. I for one am not accusing anyone on this board of actually practicing idolatry. Mere outward practice cannot solve the issue of an idolatrous heart, I agree. But although this may be the most important issue it is not the only issue. In addition to the prohibition of worshipping idols, we are also forbidden to make them. The second commandment requires the "disapproving, detesting, opposing all false worship; and according to each one's place and calling, removing it, and all monuments of idolatry". Like it or not, a "Christmas" tree is a monument of idolatry. It is our duty not to have this monument set up in our homes even if we ourselves are not worshipping it. I may not worship a statue of Buddah but I also may not have it in my home. This is not a "peashooter regulation" but an implication and application of the second commandment.

 

[gregbed]

Some kids were playing Ring around the Rosies outside my house this afternoon.

I recalled this thread and yelled at them: "What are you kids doing singing about the Black Death! Don't you know that the Bubonic Plague killed nearly half the World's population and you trivialize it with song?!"

They looked frightened and confused...

but deep down I think they understood.

And now having heard your voice on Unchained Radio, it is only that much funnier picturing some little kids' reaction.

 

[gregbed]

JColleen,

Is it true, or is it just legend that Luther brought back the Christmas tree?

I heard he brought in the practice of Christmas lights to represent eternal security. Then the Arminians invented those blinking ones.

 

[Augusta]

Rev. Pierce, of course you are correct that the most important issue is the practice/non-practice of idolatry. I for one am not accusing anyone on this board of actually practicing idolatry. Mere outward practice cannot solve the issue of an idolatrous heart, I agree. But although this may be the most important issue it is not the only issue. In addition to the prohibition of worshipping idols, we are also forbidden to make them. The second commandment requires the "disapproving, detesting, opposing all false worship; and according to each one's place and calling, removing it, and all monuments of idolatry". Like it or not, a "Christmas" tree is a monument of idolatry. It is our duty not to have this monument set up in our homes even if we ourselves are not worshipping it. I may not worship a statue of Buddah but I also may not have it in my home. This is not a "peashooter regulation" but an implication and application of the second commandment.

Thank you for your comments Rev. King. They seem devastating to the question at hand. Someone mentioned the meat sacrificed to idols passage from 1 Cor 10. They failed to mention though the verses preceding in the same passage that state:

14 Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry. 15 I speak as to wise men; judge for yourselves what I say. 16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? 17 For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread.
18 Observe Israel after the flesh: Are not those who eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar? 19 What am I saying then? That an idol is anything, or what is offered to idols is anything? 20 Rather, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice to demons and not to God, and I do not want you to have fellowship with demons. 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the Lord’s table and of the table of demons. 22 Or do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than He?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

From Calvin's Commentary on Romans 14:4

4. Who art thou who judgest, etc. “As you would act uncourteously, yea, and presumptuously among men, were you to bring another man’s servant, under your own rules, and try all his acts by the rule of your own will; so you assume too much, if you condemn anything in God’s servant, because it does not please you; for it belongs not to you to prescribe to him what to do and what not to do, nor is it necessary for him to live according to your law.”

Now, though the power of judging as to the person, and also as to the deed, is taken from us, there is yet much difference between the two; for we ought to leave the man, whatever he may be, to the judgment of God; but as to his deeds we may indeed form a decisive opinion, though not according to our own views, but according to the word of God; and the judgment, derived from his word, is neither human, nor another man’s judgment. Paul then intended here to restrain us from presumption in judging; into which they fall, who dare to pronounce anything respecting the actions of men without the warrant of God’s word.

To his own Lord he stands or falls, etc. As though he said, — “It belongs rightly to the Lord, either to disapprove, or to accept what his servant doeth: hence he robs the Lord, who attempts to take to himself this authority.” And he adds, he shall indeed stand: and by so saying, he not only bids us to abstain from condemning, but also exhorts us to mercy and kindness, so as ever to hope well of him, in whom we perceive anything of God; inasmuch as the Lord has given us a hope, that he will fully confirm, and lead to perfection, those in whom he has begun the work of grace.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

The question, at least according to Gillespie's rule, is whether some practice is notoriously abused to idolatry. Is an xmas tree such? We cannot simply assume everything ever connected to outright idolatry in the history of the world (like the names for the days of the week) is a practice that must be got rid of according to G's rule. See chapter 2 of Part three in EPC.

 

[ChristopherPaul]

In reading Genesis 1:21, the author writes that God created the sea monsters or sea creatures.

In light of this discussion, I found the commentary in the Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible very interesting:

In Old Testament poetry these are the dreaded sea dragons of pagan mythology (Ps. 74:13; Isa 27:1, 51:9). Hebrew poets adopted pagan imagery, but not pagan theology. In this antimythical polemic the aquatic animals are appreciated as part of God's creation.

 

[Augusta]

In reading Genesis 1:21, the author writes that God created the sea monsters or sea creatures.

In light of this discussion, I found the commentary in the Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible very interesting:

Sea dragons, mythology??

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20061005/D8KIF7J80.html

 

[PresReformed]

Rev. Pierce, of course you are correct that the most important issue is the practice/non-practice of idolatry. I for one am not accusing anyone on this board of actually practicing idolatry. Mere outward practice cannot solve the issue of an idolatrous heart, I agree. But although this may be the most important issue it is not the only issue. In addition to the prohibition of worshipping idols, we are also forbidden to make them. The second commandment requires the "disapproving, detesting, opposing all false worship; and according to each one's place and calling, removing it, and all monuments of idolatry". Like it or not, a "Christmas" tree is a monument of idolatry. It is our duty not to have this monument set up in our homes even if we ourselves are not worshipping it. I may not worship a statue of Buddah but I also may not have it in my home. This is not a "peashooter regulation" but an implication and application of the second commandment.

 

[ChristopherPaul]

Sea dragons, mythology??

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20061005/D8KIF7J80.html

I literally stumbled across the text and the note this evening. What are you saying; the author(s) of the note is wrong in associating the use of sea creatures with the adoption of pagan mythology? Curious...

 

[Augusta]

I am saying the sea creatures are not necessarily a myth. They could be real creatures that God created but have died out. Maybe I am misunderstanding you. Sorry. Way off topic anyway.

 

[ChristopherPaul]

I am saying the sea creatures are not necessarily a myth. They could be real creatures that God created but have died out. Maybe I am misunderstanding you. Sorry. Way off topic anyway.

Ok. My point is that Pagan mythology was adopted by Hebrew writers (and made it into the Holy Canon), but not the theology. It sounds similar to what has been said with the pagan Christmas trees. The Pagan symbol is adopted but not the "theology".

 

[govols]

I heard he brought in the practice of Christmas lights to represent eternal security. Then the Arminians invented those blinking ones.

I thought they invented the different coloured ones, especially the blue lights hanging from a porch.

 

[KenPierce]

The larger point is this.

If we were living in pre-modern Europe, and our neigbors Sven, Igor, and Lars were bowing down to Wotan, and celebrating some winter festival to their god, then yes there would be danger of cultural confusion.

That is the same reason it would be exceeding wise, yea sinful, for a Christian to have buddhas or hindu gods --those are "living" false gods. That is, people still worship them. I have yet to meet a Wotan or Thor worshipper, though I am sure there are probably five to ten around. But the scoffing secularist/materialist is not worshipping that god. He is worshipping affluence or, if he is a bit more reflective, scientism. Some of you are drawing the battle lines in all the wrong places.

The fact that scoffers today use ancient myths to belittle Christians for having Christmas trees is totally different. They are not in danger of being led astray, or somehow ratified in their idolatry. The Christmas tree is not their god --they are using it to blacken Christians' eyes.

What are the idols of our culture? Conspicuous consumption, houses, affluence, convenience, leisure, sexuality, etc. Yet, how many here are affluent? I would bet all, by the standards of the entire world, just from the fact you have a computer and leisure time to spend on it. It is very easy and safe to go tilting at the windmills of bygone false gods. It is much harder (and I know this from personal experience and cost) to charge after the idols most Christians worship in our day and age (familyolatry being a big one)

Why aren't we marking these idols out for destruction? How much better to spend our fire on those things than to get bogged down in these intranecine debates?

 

[Kevin]

 

[gwine]

I thought they invented the different coloured ones, especially the blue lights hanging from a porch.

Actually they invented the ones that fade away and lose their light.

 

[LadyFlynt]

I'm not speaking of mere scoffers...I'm speaking of those same pagans (Sven, and others).

My neighbours have been practicing Wiccans, Hindus, etc. They exist...they are not just merely past tense thing. Therefore, you are correct...we should worry...only RIGHT NOW.

BTW, Gillespie's Rule vs Scriptural Rule....hmmm, hard choice there.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

I'm not speaking of mere scoffers...I'm speaking of those same pagans (Sven, and others).

My neighbours have been practicing Wiccans, Hindus, etc. They exist...they are not just merely past tense thing. Therefore, you are correct...we should worry...only RIGHT NOW.

BTW, Gillespie's Rule vs Scriptural Rule....hmmm, hard choice there.

No choice needed. Gillespie rules because his rules are Scriptural.

 

[ADKing]

Why aren't we marking these idols out for destruction? How much better to spend our fire on those things than to get bogged down in these intranecine debates?

Why does this always have to be set down as an either/or choice? Of course we should preach against all idolatry!

As someone has said, modern pagan groups in the US still do worship trees. Nevertheless, to me, the greater danger is not of tree worshipers as such, but the fact that the "Christmas" tree stands as an emblem of syncretism. It represents the fact that professing Christians through the ages have been willing to indiscriminately adopt pagan/Romish rituals. This is not a dead/past issue. Christmas is still very much identified with Romanism and modern evangelical and reformed churches that adopt it are guilty of introducing a host of unbiblical practices. I realise that not everyone here will agree with me on this. Nevertheless, this is one of my biggest reasons for disliking the practice personally. Syncretism among professing Christians is still a huge problem and the tree is just one more reminder of it.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

This is a reasonable argument to make Adam; and one I generally agree with (which is why I would not have a tree in my own place). And Gillespie smug has some compelling reasons we should jettison practices that remind or move us back toward superstition and will worship even if they are not necessarily involving us in those things in and of themselves.

Nevertheless, to me, the greater danger is not of tree worshipers as such, but the fact that the "Christmas" tree stands as an emblem of syncretism. It represents the fact that professing Christians through the ages have been willing to indiscriminately adopt pagan/Romish rituals. This is not a dead/past issue. Christmas is still very much identified with Romanism and modern evangelical and reformed churches that adopt it are guilty of introducing a host of unbiblical practices. I realise that not everyone here will agree with me on this. Nevertheless, this is one of my biggest reasons for disliking the practice personally. Syncretism among professing Christians is still a huge problem and the tree is just one more reminder of it.

 

[Ravens]

If we were living in pre-modern Europe, and our neigbors Sven, Igor, and Lars were bowing down to Wotan, and celebrating some winter festival to their god, then yes there would be danger of cultural confusion.

For current reconstructions (as I enjoy pointing out to them) of Teutonic heathenism (numerically much smaller than Wiccans, but they do exist), check out:

http://www.asatru.org/
www.runestone.org
http://www.ealdriht.org/
http://www.odinistfellowship.co.uk/
http://www.irminsul.org/as/asr.html

BTW, obviously these links are pagan; just providing them for Christians to educate themselves on what's out there.

 

[Ravens]

Not to hijack this thread, but as an aside:

You'll never see anything more amusing in life than the adherents of a very masculine religion (where even the females were warriors, e.g. Freyja, shield-maidens, and the valkyries) constructed around strength, power, bloodlust, berzerkergang, et al., getting together and complaining and whining about how the evil Christians managed to take away their whole civilization from them.

Not saying that the Franks did their missionary work in an entirely appropriate manner (...) or that St. Olaf deserved the title "saint"... but its still ironic to read the modern day devotees of Odin and Thor, who handed out beat-downs like skittles, whine about "fair play" and how they got hosed by the Christians.

There's a pericope from Njal's Saga (Icelandic) wherein a heathen woman runs out to challenge a ship or something (with Christians on it, my memory is foggy) about how the Red (strength/virility) Thor had challenged the White (weakness) Christ to a duel, and that Christ didn't show up for fear.

Considering Njal's Saga was probably written (from memory) around 1,000 A.D., sometimes I jokingly mention that "round 1" was about four hundred years before that, when Winfrid / St. Boniface cut down Donar's (German variant for "Thor") sacred oak in his missionary endeavors.

Anyway. Thread hijack over, sorry for the disturbance.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I have 3 things to add to this discussion:

1. I find it comical that a discussion about Christmas Trees is the "hot topic" on the Puritanboard right now. Talk about passion for things disputable.

2. My tree is artificial. The pagans didn't have artificial trees. Ergo, my Christmas tree is not pagan.

3. The vote is 43 to 30 and we all know that theological debates are settled by majority vote. The non-tree users may attempt to form a coalition with those that are not sure but all the committees will henceforth be chaired by the pro-tree party.

 

[PresReformed]

3. The vote is 43 to 30 and we all know that theological debates are settled by majority vote. The non-tree users may attempt to form a coalition with those that are not sure but all the committees will henceforth be chaired by the pro-tree party.

Rich...I hope you were joking above when you said that theological debates are settled by majority vote.

 

[PresReformed]

No choice needed. Gillespie rules because his rules are Scriptural.

Chris...That may be true. Maybe it has to do with the application of Gillespie's rule. I would bet all my savings that Gillespie had nothing to do with the Christ Mass or Christ Mass trees.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Kinda funny; sorta. As far as the activity; wait until next Spring and Easter Oeufs (one French word I remember from HS).

I have 3 things to add to this discussion:

1. I find it comical that a discussion about Christmas Trees is the "hot topic" on the Puritanboard right now. Talk about passion for things disputable.

2. My tree is artificial. The pagans didn't have artificial trees. Ergo, my Christmas tree is not pagan.

3. The vote is 43 to 30 and we all know that theological debates are settled by majority vote. The non-tree users may attempt to form a coalition with those that are not sure but all the committees will henceforth be chaired by the pro-tree party.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

I suspect Mr. George had nothing to do with betting. Of course in discussing what Gillespie may or may not have had anything to do with, we are discussing his times, and not ours. I do know he had no problem with the heathen names for the days of the week. So this just puts us back to the same arguments we've been having and does not settle anything.

Chris...That may be true. Maybe it has to do with the application of Gillespie's rule. I would bet all my savings that Gillespie had nothing to do with the Christ Mass or Christ Mass trees.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Rich...I hope you were joking above when you said that theological debates are settled by majority vote.

I'm sorry I left out the most compelling part of my argument:

4. BOOYAH!

 

[PresReformed]

I suspect Mr. George had nothing to do with betting. Of course in discussing what Gillespie may or may not have had anything to do with, we are discussing his times, and not ours. I do know he had no problem with the heathen names for the days of the week. So this just puts us back to the same arguments we've been having and does not settle anything.

But since you're quoting Gillespie isn't it only fair to interpret his writings by his own practice? Chris...are you really saying that Gillespie wouldn't have any problem putting up a Christ Mass tree if he lived nowadays? The Christ Mass is still an invention of the Roman Catholic Church, same as it was 350 years ago. Whether or not he had a problem calling a day "Monday" is pretty irrelevant. Putting a tree in your home around winter solstice or the Christ Mass is a far cry from that. It is going through the motions of a pagan festival. I call the Christ Mass "Christ Mass", that is nowhere near me participating in Christ Mass celebrations or practices.