A Pagan Symbol in the Church?

Should we allow a Christmas tree in the church?

Both Yes’s and No’s: things to think about:

Yes

Worship is not only vertical and individual; it is also communal and social (as evidenced by unison prayer). In other words not everything or every symbol we have in the sanctuary is a part of worship in the strictest sense.

No

Presbyterians believe in Sola Scriptora. Tradition does not dictate future necessity. Simply because it has been done in the past does not mean that it should have been done or that it should continue to be done. Our worship should be based upon our understanding of scripture not our culture.

Yes and No

Symbols such as a Christmas tree, do not themselves contain specific meaning. Meaning is ascribed to them by each individual. What might be Christian to one might be pagan to another. To be fair, the Christmas tree has been closely connected to both expressions.

Yes

The sanctuary is already filled with imagery. Some of this is vertical in nature (relational between God and people) and some of it is horizontal in nature (communal). A good example of the horizontal would be the flowers placed on the communion table when someone in the church has lost a loved one. In this case the flower is not a part of worship in the vertical sense. It is however a part of community (“one body”) and is considered acceptable because it is not anti-Christian. The same argument could be made for the inclusion of a Christmas tree in the sanctuary.

No

The Christmas Tree has often been connected (with much controversy) to the “New Years Tree” or “Adam and Eve Tree” in 16^th century Germany and was a religious and cultural tradition. But it is not the same thing and one could suggest similarly that images of Santa Clause could then also be placed inside the church because of the images connection to St. Nicholas. Many people have reservations about the Christmas tree in church because they see it as a slippery slop.

Yes

Tree imagery is not new. What most people don’t realize is that trees were very likely painted on the inside of the Jewish Temple. The pillars were at times referred to as “trees” and the menorah itself witch symbolizes the burning bush. (The Jewish Roots of a Feminist Icon, Vanessa Silberman) In fact the entire Temple and surrounding court (Solomon’s porch) was said to be a reflection of Eden. Trees, flowers and fountains (not including the massive basin called “The Sea”) completed this image or the Genesis creation scene.

No

The word “holy” means “otherworldly”. When we inter into a space of communal worship we should not find a reflection of our culture. We should find something completely otherworldly; completely different. The art, the music, the message; everything should be a reflection of God and not culture.

Either Yes or No and not in our homes either

At the death of Christ the Holy of Holies was cracked. The temple has been destroyed. There is no longer a sacred space but only a sacred people (“the body” who is the temple 1Cor. 6:19). In this regard there is no difference between having a Christmas tree at home, in the sanctuary or in the Great room. Wherever “two or three may gather” becomes “the Church” in the strictest sense.

Yes

Also called “the Temple” is “all of creation” (Acts 7:49). All creation declares of God’s glory (Ps. . Certainly a tree is a part of creation and can be used to declare God’s glory.

No

Christians are called to be counter cultural and yet no separatists. We are called to be in the world but not of the world (John 17:14-19).

Yes

At many times we use the sanctuary for things other than worship. At a funeral service there is indeed worship but there is also the practicing of horizontal and communal care. At this moment we behave much as a family and the sanctuary is much like a family home. For people who hold this view, having a tree in the sanctuary is a normal expression of the family unit a church enjoys. It is a part of being “one body”.

No

Deuteronomy 12:4 says, “Do not worship God in their way”. While it specifically speaks to idol worship it does bear some light on the idea of bring secular items into the church. We should as Christians always be careful not to let cultural symbols to be confused with faith symbols or nationalism.

No

In Jeremiah 10:1-4 the prophet writes, “Hear what the LORD says to you, O house of Israel. This is what the LORD says: “Do not learn the ways of the nations or be terrified by signs in the sky, though the nations are terrified by them. For the customs of the peoples are worthless; they cut a tree out of the forest, and a craftsman shapes it with his chisel. They adorn it with silver and gold; they fasten it with hammer and nails so it will not totter.” While this verse is often used to condemn the adornment of Christmas Trees it is of course about idol worship. Though strikingly similar in custom we must note that the Christmas Tree is not worshiped and so is not the same thing. However this again shows us how God wishes for us to transcend cultural or “worldly” things in favor of “Holy” things.

One Modern “Solution”

Some Lutheran churches have come to a rather cleaver decision when it comes to having Christmas trees in the sanctuary. Instead of allowing for the culture of this world to claim an adored tree to be related to Christmas (Christ), they have chosen to “reclaim Christmas for Christ to whom it truly belongs”. To do this they have simply renamed the tree as “The Chrismon Tree”. This is an attempt to be “in the world” but not “of the world”. The Chrismon Tree is a highly symbolic ornament. It is decorated by the children each week with traditional Christian symbols called Chrismon.

The Nativity… in the Bible

Spoiler:  If you like the culturally popular version of the nativity, then read no further.

Picture a nativity scene in your head. Perhaps you have these figures on your coffee table at home. Most of us can quite readily offer up the details of that image without much thought. What do you see? Like me, do you see Joseph and Mary riding upon a donkey to the inn? Does the inn keeper send the pregnant couple outside to a small wooden shed called a “manger”? Is the manger out in the middle of a field somewhere? When you picture the scene, does it look like December 25^th in Canada? Are the shepherds praising God near the corner of this small wooden structure with a goodly number of sheep in tow? Has someone set Jesus down in a soft nest of hay while three well-dressed kings stand near by or sit atop the camels they rode? What do the “kings” have in their hands? Does each of these men hold a beautifully wrapped gift – one each? Well… truth be told, that picture may not be all that accurate.

From what the Bible tells us, It is true that Joseph and Mary had to travel from Galilee to the Bethlehem (the hometown of Joseph’s forefathers). But, just how they got there is actually unknown. It is however, very doubtful that Joseph could ever afford a large financial expense like a donkey. Seeing Mary on a donkey is kind of like picturing her in a new Cadillac. Most likely, the very pregnant Mary had to walk the whole way, though it is also possible that she sat in a small cart (kind of like a wheelbarrow or a rickshaw) which Joseph would have had to pull.

The popular vision of the “inn” is also not likely accurate.  Joseph would have gone first to the home of a family member as was custom in that region.  This was not the countryside but rather the city.  So, the nativity sets we have should probably include a large cluster of buildings much like a modern-day ghetto. The family might have had a guestroom for travelers upstairs, which was commonplace during that time, but it was apparently full with others from Joseph’s family.  At this point, one of Joseph’s relatives would have sent him to the backyard to use a carved-out cave (with door), or a stone structure of some kind for shelter. Usually this would be used to house one or two animals from time to time. In any case this structure was called a “stable”.

As for the manger, this word has confused a great many. Another word for “manger” is “trough” as in a food trough for animals. This would have likely been a very slim and very long structure that was attached to the side of a wall. It definitely would not have fit the baby well nor would it have been even remotely comfortable.

Now, on to other issues: the shepherds and the kings.   I highly doubt that the shepherds (who would have come from just outside town) would have taken any sheep from the sheep-fold to bring with them to the city for a baby visit. However, the “three kings” is a much bigger issue. These men were actually “magi” and not kings at all. And, they arrive quite a bit later in the story. In fact, we are told, that they visit the “toddler” Jesus, and not at a stable at all but in a “house”. As for the number three, the Scriptures do not tell us how many there were, but only that they (plural) did bring three kinds of gifts. Gold was a common gift for royalty. Frankincense had a lot of significance as anointing oil and was also an offering made in the Temple. Myrrh is the strangest of these gifts by far. Myrrh was used to dress the dead. It was a kind of embalming fluid of the day. As many see it these gifts are not that joyful at all but are more likely a kind of foreshadow for what’s to come. As far as the number of magi it has sometimes been assumed that there were three just because three distinct gifts are mentioned but that was probably not the case. It is often suggested that there would have been around seven visiting Magi but that number, like three, is just an educated guess; we actually have no clue. And, as for them wearing crowns, nice clothing, and riding on camels - the Bible simply doesn’t say. If I had to guess though, I’d say they walked like just about everyone else in their day. There are, of course, other issues like the date of the star, the historicity of the voyage, illusions to the Exodus, and the presence of a holy angel (who appeared much earlier in the story) but, all in all, I think you get the picture.

So, perhaps the image that popular culture gives us today is not that biblical.  Perhaps the scene we see should just be Mary and Joseph in a small stone building, or a cave in the backyard of a city-dwelling relative.  Perhaps no snow would be on the ground. Perhaps it was April. Perhaps the shepherds would stand about while several magi just begin their journey; not to arrive for some time. But then again… perhaps the vision we see in our heads or on our coffee tables isn’t really about the magi or the donkey. Perhaps what is really important is just the birth of Jesus, who is Emmanuel (God is with us).

Merry Christmas everyone