Christmas Tree, Santa Claus, December 25th...Paganism? - Rev. Jethro Rachmadi

Our discussion today is on three Christmas-related matters that Christians find greatly controversial. The first one being Santa Claus, the second on Christmas tree—having no connection whatsoever with Nativity, obscuring and tainting the true meaning of Christmas—and the third and most recent case, the December 25th dating system, which originated from pagan European beliefs during the 1st century onward. For example, the cult of the sun during the Roman Empire is believed to determine the dating of December 25th (Sol Invictus). Thus, based on the said arguments, Christians argue that such a paganistic dating system should be disregarded. Or should we?

DISCLAIMER

Today's discussion is not intended to attack the opposing argument. It is never our objective to observe how others reason, but how we reason. Let us remember to carry such a state of mind as we begin our discussion. Today, I would like us to understand that the issues are far more complex than they seem on social media and the articles we read. Today's discussion should allow us to be still and meditate on how this discussion may impact us, instead of blasting it on social media with the pride of knowledge. As a disclaimer, we pursue not the answer to whether Christmas trees and Santa Claus are permissible or not. If shortly we find out that the December 25th dating and Christmas trees are products of Christianity-baptized pagan cultures, this will not and should not shake our faith. I have previously discussed on another occasion the use of the term evangelism and how it is derived from the word Evangelion (Roman), which means the good news of the birth of a new Roman emperor. The term, Evangelion, being more than just a historical term, is very much actually a religious and pagan term, for the emperor was considered the highest among gods. Yet to our surprise, the Bible has never avoided the term Evangelion despite its origin. If the Bible disregards the stigma of using pagan cultures or elements for the sake of the gospel, our view should be the same in terms of Christmas tree or the dating of December 25th. In fact, I do not completely believe December 25th to be the exact date of Christ's birth anyway.

Ω

DECEMBER 25TH

The dating of December 25th is claimed to be originated from the pagan calendar of Sol Invictus (the invincible sun, a cult of the sun sect of the Roman Empire. Aurelian, a Roman Emperor of the year 270-275 AD, dedicated December 25th particularly to worship the sun god in a temple. So, December 25th is just a title we give as opposed to the actual birth date of Christ. But is the claim that such dating is adopted from paganism true?

My material today is based on Thomas J. Talley's "The Origin of the Liturgical Year". Talley discovered that the claim that December 25th is of pagan origin in the 17th-18th century, because of the scholars named Jablonski and Hardwin. Both scholars used this data to support two different ideas. Jablonski wrote, "see how the Christians have compromised and begin to adopt pagan dating, therefore we must avoid the date December 25th". On the other hand, Hardaway wrote, "see how the Christians and the church contextualize with the local culture without causing herself to be unclean". Talley observed that this culture does not originate from the church fathers, yet in both of these scholars' writings, we capture one common idea; the specialty of the date December 25th.

The use of the date December 25th began in 45 BC (Before Christ), during the reign of Julius Caesar (according to the Julian calendar), when the date December 25th was marked as the winter solstice. Winter solstice is a solar equinox, a day when the duration of day increases as compared to the duration of night. As the day shortens, we would not have 12 hours of day and 12 hours of night, but perhaps 11 hours of day and 13 hours of night. By then, the winter solstice was a significant phenomenon in astronomy, but not in religion. Not until Aurelius Caesar set that particular date in Rome as a date to worship the sun (Sol Invictus) in 274 AC (After Christ). We then later discover that the first record of Christmas being celebrated on December 25th was in the year 336 AC. It is clear that the date December 25th was first used for religious purposes during the era of Aurelian and that Christians adopted it afterward.

This is the data which we obtain from Jablonski and Hardaway, but Talley discovered one other fact: between 45 BC and 274 AC, the date December 25th was no longer used for the purpose of Sol Invictus or any other religious purposes. In fact, it was written on the walls of the two Roman temples before the era of Aurelian, and that the dedication towards Sol Invictus was celebrated on August 9th and 28th anyway, instead of December 25th. So, December 25th paganistic significance must have occurred after the era of Aurelian. Such was Talley's first discovery.

Second, he discovered the difference between the celebration and the dating calculation. True that Christians first celebrated Christmas on December 25th in 336 AD after the era of Aurelian, yet the question that Talley raised was whether or not Christians have used the December 25th dating before Aurelian set the date as Sol Invictus in 274 AD. Could Christians have used the December 25th dating before Aurelian's era, but not the Christmas festival? If we could prove that Christians have done so before Aurelian did, we may then claim that Christians did not adopt this dating system from paganism. It turns out that Talley found out that both the eastern and western churches, the churches of Alexandria or Constantinople have attempted to calculate the birth date of Jesus before Aurelius did, which was in the 2nd century (Aurelian's dating was in 274 AC, which was equivalent to the 3rd century).

This fact is well-supported by textual evidence. In the year of 170-20 AD, before Aurelius commented on the book of Daniel, Hippolytus said that God was born in Bethlehem 8 days before the Kalends of January (December 25th). This is interesting because the calculation was done by the western church, while the eastern and western churches date Christmas differently. The eastern church, which we know today as eastern orthodox, considers January 6th or 7th as Christmas day, which has also been proven to be calculated before the Aurelian era. This was written by Clement of Alexandria, a bishop, from the book The Stromata / Miscellanies, according to his discovery in the year 200 in his very own eastern church. We now know through textual evidence that Christians have calculated the dating of December 25th despite not celebrating it. But why did they not celebrate it? Because interestingly, their attempt to calculate one's birth date is merely to point to one's death and resurrection days. This is because, for the church in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd centuries, the most fundamental day for Christianity is not the birth of Christ, but His death and resurrection. Knowing this fact, they began to wonder if they could too calculate one's birth. Their initial purpose was so they could celebrate good Friday and easter, it was much later that they began to calculate Christ's birth date as well.

This is the reason why there is a discrepancy between the date calculation and the celebration. During the era of Tertullian in 155 AD (before Aurelian), the western church set Friday, March 25th in 29 AD as the date of Christ's birth,  while the eastern church on April 6th in 29 AD. These calculations yield the dates December 25th and January 6th. Calculating one's birth date by figuring out one's death day is a concept called integral age in Judaism. This is not based on the Scripture, but merely on how people think at the time. They also had a belief that the great prophets died on the same date as the date they were conceived. So, they set March 25th as the annunciation day (conception day), because they believed March 25th was the day Christ died. Add 9 months from the conception day, you would have December 25th. The eastern church held the same belief: Adding 9 months to April 6th would give us January 6th. 

In conclusion, the main purpose of this study is not a matter of historical accuracy. We merely attempt to find out whether December 25th is derived from a Christian-baptized pagan culture. Yet it is not the case according to Talley's research, for such calculation has been dated to be conducted prior to 274 AD, although the celebration was held afterward. Therefore, it could be concluded that Aurelius was the one who adopted the date from Christians and not vice versa.

In the present-day context, we need to learn that such claims are mere hypotheses. The point of all this discussion is not so we hate Jablonski and Hardwin, to support Talley, nor to mock the pagans for adopting our date. We have just seen the data and our theses may differ, this is called science, and science grows. Through this discussion, we do not wish to decide which date is correct. What we wish is to learn the reason behind labeling such dating as pagan or as Christian. All the hypotheses which we have just discussed will continue to grow in time. We should not be satisfied with either conclusion A or conclusion B, and that we have to ceaselessly learn different interpretations. This is the true definition of a reformed church, semper reformanda, consistently re-form-ing. If one day, there is another Biblical teaching that rather opposes that of Calvin's, we must be bold to refrain from Calvin. Our heart is constantly in search of one sole unchanging individual, one sole unchanging theory, but this is the very Roman Catholic principle which Luther was against. Taking hold of tradition without having a reforming heart is not being reformed after all. We have to constantly evaluate and correct our interpretations.

CHRISTMAS TREE

Some Christians often sneer at the sound of Christmas Trees and Santa Claus for they have the danger of shifting us into idolatry. This is based on realistic reasoning for it may indeed fade away the true meaning of Christmas. We have witnessed this in the world of commercialism, how people around the world, regardless of their beliefs, may celebrate Christmas without having anything to do with Christ, and by so have drifted us away from the true meaning of Christmas.

First of all, what is idolatry? Which should we consider an idol and which should we not? Being raised such a question, our mind would often be focused on the object which may be associated with idolatry, for instance for us Indonesians, the ash of Mount Kawi. Regardless of its user, the ash itself holds a mystical sense of idolatry. Or try to make sense of the following sentence: An idol is something good, in fact, the better something is, the more prone it will be to become an idol. We even focus on the object in the previous sentence, and not on its user. Today, I would like you to see how the image of idolatry is not as simple as observed in light of the Biblical paradigm.

The Bible has a strong emphasis on defining an idol, not from the object itself, but on its subject. First, the most central part of the scripture on the prohibition on idolatry is stated on the second law in Exodus 20, which we are all familiar with. In verse 4, the prohibition against idolatry is emphasized in the cosmology of the people of that era: the realms of the heavens, the earth, and underneath the earth. Yet, during the building of the tabernacle in Exodus 23, God immediately instructed to create images of the earthly creatures. Then Moses was instructed to create images of angels on the tents of the Tabernacle, and the Ark of the Covenant and cherubim above it are clearly images of the creatures above the earth prohibited by Exodus 20. Let alone how the modern scholars add that the Tabernacle's shape itself is very close to the idols at that era. The ark, being rectangular in shape and equipped with staves mimics the Egyptian palanquin because the Israelites came from Egypt. Moreover, the cherubim above the ark have wings covering their beings mimic the Egyptian goddesses Isis and Nepthys. More so, the word cherubim, is not rooted in the Hebrew language, but in the Acadian / Mesopotamian language (kāribu). Not only is the term derived from a pagan origin, but so is its meaning. Kāribu is heavenly beings who are in charge of protecting the god, while the Ark of the Covenant stands for God's presence in the temple, and the cherubim the guards of Yahweh, the God of Israel. In Exodus, when Moses behold the glory of God, Moses saw the glory of God between the cherubim. Not only were these images instructed, but they were also derived from images of the surrounding pagan cultures. Yet, Exodus 23 does not reject the idea of these images despite the prohibition in Exodus 20. Why do not these instructions collide with each other? Because idolatry according to the Bible is not a matter of the object, but its use. The prohibition lies not in the carving of the statue or images, but in its use and how we worship it. In other words, the subjective aspect weighs more than the objective aspect.

Egyptian Palanquin

Isis and Nephthys

Now if we wish to observe Christmas practices, we must use these paradigms. Should we then ask the origin of the Christmas Tree, what its essence is, and its cultural and historical background? Instead, we must care to ask how we may use Christmas Tree and Santa Claus. Let us say that there is a child who associates pine trees with pagan gods, and this child visits your house and sees a Christmas Tree. Maybe, in this case, it would be best for you to get rid of the tree at all. In fact, this is what Paul did to the church in Rome and Corinth. When he mentioned that some of their brothers were weaker, for they were not able to eat meat due to their association with the meat sacrificed for the idols, Paul said, "Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble". We often focus ourselves on the object, whether or not the meat itself is unclean, or whether or not the Christmas Tree is pagan, yet we fail to focus on its subjective aspect, according to the Bible's approach.

We can see this more clearly upon seeing the relationship between trees and the presence of God. The Bible jots many references to trees when God is present. Abraham encountered Oak / Terebinth trees (or otherwise called the great trees) when God revealed Himself to him. Why does the Bible care to write about the tree and the fact that Abraham once again encountered the tree when God revealed Himself to him for the second time? It was also written how Abraham planted a Tamarisk tree in Beersheba when he called upon God's name. What is the significance of this act? We often read through these passages without paying close attention to these details; we have been blinded by our own private spectacles. Joshua made a covenant and law by building a stone underneath a great tree in the Lord's holy ground. The pattern is alike when Gideon did the same underneath a Terebinth tree and Moses by the burning bush. Although the presence of God is not mentioned in Exodus 15:27, this is the part when the Israelites thirst greatly and found the twelve springs and seventy date trees in Elim. Could the presence of the seventy date trees symbolize the presence of God among them, knowing that the presence of God and trees are closely related according to the culture? In the ANE (Ancient Near East; Acadia, Mesopotamia, Israel, Egyp) concept, an oasis tree located in the wilderness symbolizes life. Thus, it is no surprise that people in such a geographical context associate God with a tree. This concept too spreads in other nations at that time, which you could also read in their bibles. Does it then mean that the Israelites are committing adultery when they associate trees with God? Not at all, the Old Testament has no problem in delivering such association, because the focal point is not in the object, but in its use; how we, as the subjects, use the objects.

Not only did the Israelites use trees, but they also used stone pillars (masseboth). Jacob, Moses, and Joshua built these masseboth. Masseboth has been done before in the cases of Stonehenge, Menhir, and Dolmen. Giving a religious significance to these giant rocks is a widespread culture all over the world, the Israelites were no exception. But why is it not considered idolatry, when it is clearly a practice originated from pagan nations and culture? It is because we know that its use is not to worship God through the act but to remind them of their encounters with God. When Jacob built the rock in Bethel, he said that it was a place where he met God, to remind him of his meeting with God, and not to worship Him through the rock. Alike, in Exodus 23 and 24, Moses built 12 rocks, as a symbolism of the 12 clans of Israel, to remind the Israelites of their meeting with God. In the case of Joshua, he did the same to remind them of the renewed covenant with Yahweh after their entrance into Canaan. It is clear that the objects are not objective in nature, but subjective. Although the gentiles used these different objects for idolatry, the Israelites could freely use those items to remind them of their God. Idolatry is very closely related to man's heart, intention, and motive, and not so much with the object.

Stonehenge: a masseboth

Now we must apply the same principle with the debate on Christmas Tree. The question that we must ask in regards to Christmas Tree or any other practices that we might doubt in terms of idolatry, is not what the object is nor where it comes from. What we must ask instead is what we use them for, do we use them to worship God or to remember something about God? Yet, it can't be just anything about God, you cannot say the tree reminds you of God's grace for giving me a tree to purchase at a very good price yesterday. As Christians today, we do not use Christmas Trees to worship God, but to remember something about God, such as His coming. The use of the Christmas Tree becomes permissible due to its use for commemoration, and not worship.

Let us take a look at a case study to firm our understanding. 1 Samuel 31:11-13 states that when Saul died, the inhabitants of Jabesh-Gilead took the body of Saul and bury him under a Tamarisk tree. Why a Tamarisk tree? During his reign, Saul used Tamarisk wood for his throne. But why Tamarisk wood for a throne? Why did the kings of the past often identify themselves with a certain tree or a shepherd? Because these objects represent God, who bring forths life to the people, just as they did. Thus, through the spectacles of the Jabesh-Gileads, the burial under the Tamarisk tree was an act of wishing that Saul may be buried before the throne of God. This is because Saul once saved the Jabesh-Gilead from their enemies.

Another example would be how people in the Medieval Era used to build their churches with a cemetery. In fact, David Tong once proposed during a synod meeting that our church should think about this as well. Regardless of its subjectivity, when people of that era came to worship, they considered themselves entering into a fellowship of the believers, not only with the living congregants but also with the dead congregants. Can you imagine how when they proclaim the part of the Apostle's Creed, when it says "He will come again to judge the living and the dead", they must have uttered it in an amazingly significant understanding because for them, Sunday services entail the fellowship with the dead?

These examples I have shared are so subjective that we might question their objectivity. Yet, we cannot possibly deny its power. If somebody wills to bury the dead in the church based on his thought that this is the place where he may conduct a fellowship with the Lord's congregants—alive or dead—and with God, would you call him "foolish"? Subjectifying matters may lead to positive outcomes, yet also negative if it has turned into idolatry. Yet, our obsession with objectivity hinders us from acknowledging that the problem is how we may use these objective matters subjectively. We often forget that it is we who are called to lead the creation, to determine, and to be the creator of meaning to His creation.

SANTA CLAUS

Let us first make a list of the pros and cons of this Santa Claus character and what the argument revolves around? When it comes to St. Claus, have we not all been revolving around the object?

"Oh, St. Claus is good because he tells the story of St. Nicolas who brought gifts to children", or "No! St. Claus is bad because there was a story where he was considered a god, because St. Nicolas once visited the murderer of children too, or because St. Nicolas made possible the resurrection of the dead children. Therefore, this is a dangerous Christmas story to tell."

Once again, we need to ask not about the objectivity, but the effect, meaning, and function St. Claus have on me and my church.

I clearly have no problem with Christmas Tree, because we clearly do not use it for worship, but using the same paradigm, I do think that St. Claus is a different matter. My subjective personal opinion is that Christmas Tree points towards the commemoration of Christ, while St. Claus is not only effective but also strongly effective in shifting Jesus.

The story of Christmas is about gifts, but it is not about receiving them, but in giving, for God has first given us the ultimate Gift, His only Son. The presence of St. Claus does not remind me of this true story of Christmas but easily replaces it. You are free to disagree with this by arguing, "No, for me, it's the other way! The presence of St. Claus reminds me of God who brings gift." But I have a follow-up question for you, "Doesn't he only give gifts to nice children? Does that mean that God gives you gifts because you have done something right?" But once again, if you personally think that St. Claus deeply reminds you of Christ, that is alright too. Above all, it is important to understand that the main issue is not in St. Claus, but his function/effect towards us.

You may refuse this idea in fearing that idolatry would become a subjective issue. In that case, then you would be worshipping the Roman gods because you use the current day-naming system: Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, etc. which are derived from the names of the Roman gods. You would also be worshipping the Greek gods who inspired our month naming system: January, February, March, etc. You might then say that we should use the Hebrew dating system instead: months of Nissan, Adar, Kislev, etc. Just so you know, those months were adopted from the Babylonians.

Ω

THE ORIGIN OF CHRISTMAS TREES BEING IDENTIFIED AS PINE TREES

What initiated the identification of Christmas Trees to Pine trees?

According to Norse/Scandinavian mythology, the center of the universe is believed to be a tree called Yggdrasil. Being the center of all things, this tree upholds the whole existence of the universe, not only in the realm of men (Midgard; which term Tolkien adopted in the Lord of the Ring when he referred to the middle earth) but also in the realm of the gods (Asgard). There are nine realms that Yggdrasil upholds in total, that it became the emblem of Nordic cosmic expressions. Between these realms, lies bridges called Bifröst bridges, understood by the Nordic as the Milky Way.

Yggdrasil

Yggdrasil and the Nine Realms

The name Yggdrasil itself translates to, "the awesome one gallows", or the place where God was hung.

This story connects with the myth of a god called Odin. Odin, among other Norse gods, was especially unique. In movies, Odin is pictured as a mighty and armored warrior, whereas in the mythology, Odin resembles more towards Gandalf the Grey in the Lord of the Rings—an unkempt, old man. Unlike other gods, Odin looks ordinarily human and his relationship with men is one of a kind; never did he require men to worship him nor expect men's offering. Odin was notorious to be a god who does not take away something from men but gives something to them, similar to Prometheus in Greek mythology. Does Odin begin to remind you of a Person we know?

Odin

Odin's most famous story was when he sacrificed one of his eyes in order to acquire wisdom, thus Odin is often depicted half-blind. Yet, he did not sacrifice his vision for wisdom herself, but for the sake of runes. Runes are the gift of language, which he later gave to men after he acquired it. To Norse mythology, the giving of runes/literacy is equivalent to our understanding that we are created according to the image of God. Because to them, literacy is what differs us from beasts.

Now what's interesting is Odin's means to acquire the runes for men. He did so by hanging himself on the tree of Yggdrasil with a spear piercing himself. He willingly sacrificed himself for the sake of men's runes. We could read this story through Poetic Edda, one of the books of Norse mythology:

Odin's Discovery of the Runes

Odin's Quest after the Runes

137.
I trow I hung on that windy Tree
nine whole days and nights,
stabbed with a spear, offered to Odin,
myself to mine own self given,
high on that Tree of which none hath heard
from what roots it rises to heaven 

138.
None refreshed me ever with food or drink,
I peered right down in the deep;
crying aloud I lifted the Runes
then back I fell from thence.

This is why Yggdrasil is named Yggdrasil, the awesome one gallows. Odin is not a mighty god, yet he is highly respected in Norse mythology due to his unique relationship with men.

As you might have guessed, this is strangely similar to the story of Jesus Christ. When Christianity was to enter Scandinative, the Norsemen immediately captured the parallelism between Jesus on the tree with Odin on Yggdrasil, because they upheld Yggdrasil as a symbol of their cross, and Odin as their Jesus.

A second story regarding the tree is when the Norsemen celebrated Yule during the winter solstice on December 25th. In English, the term Yule is often associated with Christmas. Being originally a festival, Yule was a religious celebration of the three wise women, known as the Norns. These beings decide the fates of the gods and mankind and were responsible for protecting the Yggdrasil by watering the tree with the water from the Well of Urðr. When the Norse celebrated Yule to honor these Norns, it was a tradition to collect the trees of Evergreen, which are the only trees with leaves during wintertime. They would then carry them into their houses as a symbol of the defeat of winter. To the Norse, the end of the world (Ragnarok) is symbolized not by fire, but by the phenomenon of three terrible winters. Yet, Yggdrasil has fought these three winters of Ragnarok, and won the battle because Yggdrasil remained alive, yet badly injured. With Yggdrasil's last drop of strength, emerged a boy and a girl who will once again fill the new earth. Such is the legend of Ragnarok told among the Norse.

This way, the Norse celebrated Yggdrasil by collecting the evergreen Pine trees as a symbol of their lives being preserved from the end of the earth, by taking refuge behind and holding onto Yggdrasil.

Could you then imagine how Christian missionaries captured the obvious parallel between the cross and Yggdrasil upon entering the Nordic territory? Jesus was God who became men, and thus very much mortal-looking superficially, just like Odin. He too hung Himself on a form of "Yggdrasil" for the sake of mankind. This "Yggdrasil" (cross) later becomes our hope to be veiled from the wrath of God during "Ragnarok" (the end of the earth), for we have hidden behind the cross, just as how the boy and the girl were inside Yggdrasil during Ragnarok. After the catastrophic event, they would then emerge from the tree to live eternally if we may claim.

This concept could interestingly be witnessed in the church architecture in Scandinavian countries, also known as the Stave Churches. These churches resemble the shape Pine trees, and thus people gather every week in a church shaped like a Pine tree, the great Yggdrasil.

A Stave Church in Norway

Once again, once the missionaries witness this parallel, they immediately realize the means of communicating the gospel to the Norse. Today as Christians, we tend to label many things as syncretism, as compromising, the weakening of the gospel, and so on. Yet, is this truly a negative thing in the context of that particular era? Or shall we otherwise say that these missionaries were taking the opportunity that God has given them in such a situation and context? This is similar to how Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John used the term gospel, using the pattern of how gospel documentation was written back then for the sake of proclaiming the gospel of Christ. Alike, the missionaries used Norse mythology to deliver the gospel. We do not deny the fact that there are people who are syncretic. These people take the gospel, melt it, and reform it into syncretic elements with the goal to paganize the gospel. There are however other cases where people take the pagan elements as a means of gospel evangelization. Now this, we call evangelism to the pagans. 

Ω

FINAL WORDS

In conclusion, the world is complex, so are theology, the Bible, and Christianity. I have heard of a theologian who was asked to sound his ideas in a simple manner so that amateurs may understand him. His answer was (as I paraphrase it), "if I were asked about the direction to Bogor, and were asked to explain it in a simple manner, I could have answered, "this dot on the map in Jakarta, go straight towards the south, and you will arrive at Bogor." Wouldn't it be the simplest direction? But would you not also refuse such useless direction? If you wish to go to Bogor, I would have to give you a complex direction, "you may use this train, bus, and so on. If you wish to take the train, I would tell you which ticket to purchase, how to purchase the ticket, which station you must go to, and which stop you must take. Complexity, though necessary, is never intended for confusion, but simply so we may reach the destination. Nowadays, we demand a summarized theology, but if there is anything we need today so direly is the need to realize that our life is full of complexity. Those who demand simplicity and claim their humility through such preference are arrogant, know-it-all, and foolish men in their assumption that the whole world may be fathomed through simplicity. Yet, those who consider the complexity of the world would on the other hand be wise, slow in speech, and quick to listen, absorb, and examine. Now, what kind of a person do you think the kingdom of God requires?

Ω

MORE SIDE NOTES:

In the book of Ezekiel, God rebuked Israel because they were worshipping the sun as an act of idolatry.

"And he brought me into the inner court of the house of the LORD. And behold, at the entrance of the temple of the LORD, between the porch and the altar, were about twenty-five men, with their backs to the temple of the LORD, and their faces toward the east, worshiping the sun toward the east" (Ezekiel 8:16).

We like to think that this is a classic act of idolatry, that is when people worship the sun instead of worshipping God. Whereas, the word Sun is frequently used in the Old Testament when referring to YHWH. So they had a sound reason when they bowed to the Sun, as they were worshipping YHWH. But the problem is not in bowing down to the sun but is in the fact that they were setting their backs on the temple of God, a holy place where God has ordained Himself to be present while bowing to an object which supposedly reminded them of God.

Taking this analogy to the case of the Christmas tree, we may argue that the problem lies not in the usage of the tree, but whether it threatens the true objective and meaning of Christmas.

This sermon note has not been checked by the speaker.

December 11th, 2019