It is the first Sunday in Advent., the season of the Church
Year where we think back on the times when people were waiting for the coming
of the Messiah, and when we look ahead today His return. Last year in Advent, I
posted an
article debunking the idea that the date of Christmas was inspired by
paganism. This year, in the spirit of debunking other criticisms of Christmas
customs, I offer some historical reflections on Christmas trees.
Christmas trees, it is argued, are a remnant of the pagan
past. Some sources (of questionable historical value) claim they go back to
ancient Egypt, others claim
ancient Babylon,
still others point to Celtic, Roman or Norse paganism. Some even cite Jer.
10:2-5 as an explicit condemnation of Christmas trees.
Let’s deal with Jeremiah first. Modern translations indicate
that what is being discussed here is cutting down a tree in the forest, shaping
it with a tool (a chisel or axe), and covering it with gold and silver to make
an idol. If there’s any question in your mind about this, I suggest you read
the verses IN CONTEXT. Vs. 5 and 8-9 indicate that we are dealing with an idol,
and that it is wearing purple clothing, not simply draped with gold and silver
ornaments. So no, it isn’t a Christmas tree, and the only way to make it one is
to force Christmas trees into a few selected verses taken out of context and using
the King James translation since more modern translations won’t support the
argument.
So Jeremiah is irrelevant, but what about the idea that
Christmas trees come from paganism? People who cite Egypt as a source argue that they
worshipped palm trees, and Druids oaks, and then conflate these with evergreens.
Sorry, but that doesn’t make a lot of sense since neither palms nor oaks are
evergreens.
On the other hand, the ancient Romans used evergreen wreaths
to celebrate Saturnalia, and for that reason the early church did not use
wreaths or evergreens as decorations. Of course, the church didn’t use candles
or incense either for precisely the same reason. Likewise Yule logs were a
pagan custom intended to call back the sun on the Winter solstice, and holly
and ivy were pagan symbols of fertility; also, the pagan custom of using evergreens
as winter decorations continued to be practiced in Scandinavia even after the
region converted to Christianity, though the symbolism was reframed in
Christian terms (more on that below).
None of this has anything to do with Christmas trees,
however.
The earliest Christmas trees date to the mid- to late 1400s
or early 1500s AD in Germany
and German towns in the Baltic (not Scandinavia).
That’s about 700 years since the region had converted to Christianity from
paganism.
In fact, the most likely source is the use of a tree to
symbolize the “Paradise Tree” in medieval mystery plays dealing with the Fall
of Adam and Eve in the Garden. These trees were decorated with apples (later
changed to balls) to symbolize the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good
and Evil, as well as wafers to represent the Eucharist. They were placed in people’s
houses, and were closely associated with the Christmas season since the name
day of Adam and Eve was celebrated on December 24 in many countries.
So the origin of Christmas trees is found in medieval and
early modern Christianity, not in paganism, which had not been practiced in the
region for many centuries.
But we need to address another question here: what about
those practices that do have pagan roots, such as Yule logs, wreaths, and holly?
Should Christians avoid them, even if for us they symbolize something totally
different—eternal life through Christ—than they symbolized for the pagans who
originated the practices?
Missiologists today are big on the idea that we need to
contextualize the Gospel, that is, that we want to create indigenous forms of
Christianity on the mission field. We want to spread the Gospel, not Western
culture. As a result, missionaries are taught to look for the elements in the
culture that are there by common grace that provide an entry point for the
Gospel, and to encourage a culturally appropriate form of Christianity rather
than reproduce Western models of the church.
So here’s the question: if that’s good enough to spread the
Gospel to unreached people today, why don’t we think it was appropriate when Christian
missionaries did precisely the same thing: taking elements of pagan culture and
reinterpreting them to provide an entry point for the Gospel to our pagan
ancestors? Why are we so shocked and appalled at ostensible pagan elements that
have been reinterpreted in our Christianity, but have no problem when
missionaries do parallel things in other cultures? Why do we insist our
Christianity be “pure,” but not the Christianity spreading among newly reached
peoples?
Whatever elements of paganism may have crept into our
expression of Christianity, they were culturally appropriate and necessary in
their day, and have been thoroughly baptized, reinterpreted, and Christianized.
We have no reason to get hung up by “pagan Christianity,” especially in the
Christmas season where the pagan roots of our practices have been greatly
exaggerated. The rampant consumerism of our age is a different matter, but that’s
a result of our own greed rather than paganism from millennia ago.
