‘Tis the season and that means nativity scenes are now decorating the brown grass that used to be the green placeholder for the gobblins, spider webs, and styrofoam tombstones of Halloween festivities. But looking at one collection of the holy family this morning on a frigid and overcast day made me wonder why Americans who celebrate Christmas and believe in both the baby Jesus and the risen Christ — if they are going to decorate for the holiday and disobey one of Christ’s Ten Commandments — don’t find more comfortable accommodations for Mary, Joseph, and the babe. Why, for those not living in the South or California and who confess Jesus as Lord, subject the family to conditions worse than those of first-century Palestine in whichever season Christ was actually born?
Of course, late fall is not the bleak midwinter, and Bethlehem cannot produce the wintry conditions that Michigan does. In fact, if Jesus had been born in Michigan, the carol, “In the Bleak Midwinter” would actually make sense. Its first stanza is a perfect description of winter weather in the Great Lakes region:
In the bleak mid-winter
Frosty wind made moan,
Earth stood hard as iron,
Water like a stone;
Snow had fallen, snow on snow,
Snow on snow,
In the bleak mid-winter
Long ago.
Today Bethlehem’s highs will be in the 60s. Hillsdale’s will be 33 (and that feels generous).
So if Christians want to show that they really care, don’t let Jesus, Mary, and Joseph endure December’s elements. Bring the nativity scene inside near to the chestnuts roasting on an open fire.
Ho ho ho.
Old Life 
Americana, Nativity, and multi-culturalism in one photo.
https://twitter.com/_youhadonejob/status/539498908175826945
LikeLike
A lady who lives near me actually uses the same little lattice-backed arch as setting in her yard for the Eastre bunny, witches, and the Baby J according to time of the year. Gotta run — prepping for Festivus.
LikeLike
So one of my neighbors – I’m new to my house so I don’t know the ways of my subdivision – has a plastic nativity surrounding their…you guessed it, American flag flying flagpole. I nearly wrecked as I was driving to the church today. It couldn’t be more Christmas Vacation. “Play ball!”
LikeLike
A few years ago I could have picked up a foreclosure for the Holy family for peanuts.
LikeLike
Chris M.,
You’re obviously one of those 2K nuts for having a problem with that.
LikeLike
So, representations of the Nativity scene outside of a church setting (where some might be tempted to worship the image) is a violation of the Second Commandment, in the same way as having them within a church? Presumably no-one is going to be tempted towards idolatry by an outdoor representation on a house lawn, the way there is a danger with images in churches, which I thought was what the Reformers were focusing on (as well as crucifixes hanging in homes, etc.).
But, for those who don’t see it thus, why should they bring it inside, rather than proclaim it publicly outside? Unless, of course, the issue is simply that because some may consider it wrong, they ought to not offend them by having it outdoors, in public view.
LikeLike
Will, if the ethic of the second commandment doesn’t work for you, how about that of Matthew 6, i.e. don’t wear faith on the sleeve. It’s obnoxious.
LikeLike
Will, what if Jesus was born in — wait for it — April?
LikeLike
At least Utah is warmer.
LikeLike
Will, the second is about the making of images, not about where those images might be placed or what we might do with said images. Worshiping an image is a violation of the first commandment. Making an image is a violation of the second, even if one is not tempted to worship the image. Keeping the second commandment helps us to keep the Creator / creature distinction and helps us to avoid making God in our image.
LikeLike
Mad, you hater.
LikeLike
E.C. Guilty as charged.
LikeLike
CW, haters gonna hate, ya know? Maybe I’m not crazy, maybe I’m just angry… (how do I do an angry face emoticon???)
LikeLike
@ Zrim: Indeed setting aside, if I may for a moment, the issue of whether such scenes are in violation of the Second Commandment, is the public display of such, or presumably less objectionably indeed from a 2nd Commandment standpoint, a cross or fish symbol, the same as praying loudly in the temple or making a pharisaical display of alms-giving? Seems to me that a visual, if not accompanied by loud music drawing attention to itself, is of a different spirit; it’s the difference, for instance, between evangelicals who publicly pray out loud when they’re at a restaurant together, and Reformed who tend to eschew such, but still bow their head in silent prayer; anyone watching will still notice, even if no words are said which will attract more attention.
@ Hungarian: Fair enough; makes sense.
@ Dr. Hart: Not sure I get your question about April. True, we don’t know exactly when in the year Christ was born. I suppose an argument can be made that it’s therefore wrong for us to assign a season during which to observe it. Is that your point?
LikeLike
The difficulty I have with seeing the Second Commandment as referring not only to not making images for worship, but for any representations at all, is in the language of the commandment:
“4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.”
Verse 5 clearly builds upon verse 4; the sin is not merely in making an image of anything (else we couldn’t make sculptures or art depicting animals, birds, fish, etc. for any reason), but in the worshipping or serving them, as verse 5 explains. And thus, I’m not sure I see how a nativity scene, which is not meant to be worshipped, and is not bowed down to or served, is a violation of the commandment, in and of itself. That may be the way our Reformed forefathers interpreted it, but was their interpretation fully justified, in light of how the text is written? I wonder.
LikeLike
BTW, I myself am personally uncomfortable with depictions of Christ as a baby (I prefer, when I see nativity scenes, ones which don’t directly show the infant), just as I am with images of Christ as an adult on a crucifix, or the Sallman’s Head of Christ painting I grew up with in mainline Protestantism; it’s not that I crave having nativity scenes, per se; I’m just not sure that they violate the 2nd commandment in the way images in churches would.
LikeLike
All that said, @ Hungarian: I can understand, if one sees it as you do, why you would find it problematic; that makes sense.
I’m just not sure I can see it the same way, in light of how the text is written. The Authorized KJV even has verse 4 and 5 in the same sentence, with a colon separating the two; that especially establishes the relation between the two, IMO, if the regular KJV version I quoted above isn’t clear enough (no, I’m not a KJV-only type, I just like it).
LikeLike
Like musical instruments, a nativity scene is verboten, misleading and a distraction.
LikeLike
@ MPS: I understand the perspective, I think, of those who eschew musical instruments in worship. I don’t hold to that perspective myself, but I get it.
But that’s in worship. I’ve never heard anyone argue that Christians should never use musical instruments in any music form, whatsoever, including outside of worship, outside of a church.
But the interpretation of a nativity scene on someone’s lawn, rather than in a church, as being a violation of the Second Commandment, strikes me indeed as somewhat of a piece with arguing against musical instruments, period. Despite my having some personal uneasiness with elements of it, I’m not sure I can see how an absolute rule against it can be derived, from the texts of Exodus 20 or Deuteronomy 5.
LikeLike
Will, yes.
LikeLike
Will, I guess i would say that the second is not a prohibition against images generally (the tabernacle and temple had plenty of images) but rather images representing or depicting God (a la the golden calf). Clearly we shouldn’t bow down and worship idols. The question is this: is it a violation of the second commandment to create images even if we don’t worship them?
I would find it hard to imagine a good Israelite w/ a golden calf in his front yard explaining that it was OK b/c he didn’t worship it or bring it into the temple.
After all, if the second commandment merely prohibits the worship of images, then it is superfluous b/c the first commandment already has told us not to worship anything other than God. Therefore, it is not only the worshiping of images, but the creation of such images that is prohibited.
I can’t put it better than the Westminster Divines. Check out the Westminster Larger Catechism, Questions 107-110. Note that Q 109 doesn’t limit the context to worship, but to the creation of any representation.
LikeLike
Will, I have some sympathy for your points on the second. How about iconoclasm-of-the-non-legalist-variety? Sort of like the sabbatarianism-of-the-non-legalist-variety. It’s the exercise of skepticism and erring on the side of wisdom without foisting conviction on another unduly.
Which is why it may be better to appeal to Matthew 6 when it comes to those horrid things called crèches. You ask, , “…is the public display of…a cross or fish symbol, the same as praying loudly in the temple or making a pharisaical display of alms-giving?” That’s the point. There are different ways across time and place to commit the religious PDA Jesus warns against. If our context’s isn’t something like the Ichthus, what is? “Look at me, I love Jesus. Do you?” You previously suggested the point is some sort of witnessing. Sounds noble, but I seriously doubt that. More likely it’s an instance of mere self-expression, or an even more obnoxious political display of religious rights (“Look at me, I’m putting up this crèche because I can, jerk—putting ‘Christ’ back in Xmas!”).
LikeLike
Andrew Kuyvenhoven on the 2nd commandment: “A graven (engraved or carved-out) image as well as a molten image are visual and tangible representations of something or somebody else. But in Bible times when an image was set up as an object of worship, people didn’t think that the image was a picture or look-alike of a deity, as we are inclined to think. They believed that in the shape of the object resided the supra-natural power of the deity. Having such an image or idol would therefore put people in contact with that power. . .” –From his “Comfort & Joy, a Study of the Heidelberg Catechism.” I’ll let my mom keep her little crèche sculpture, thanks.
LikeLike
@ nocable: Indeed.
LikeLike