Christmas and the commercialization of faith: between spirituality and superficiality

“And Aaron seeing this, built an altar before the calf; and Aaron proclaimed, and said, Tomorrow will be a festival to the Lord” (Exodus 32, 5).

This article transcends a decontextualized religious moralism, it is rather a critical reflection on how the use of God’s name, especially at Christmas, has been instrumentalized and trivialized in modernity. It is evident that religious practices, far from preserving their spiritual authenticity, have fallen into superficiality, especially in a context of commercialization and media manipulation of faith.

This reflection invites us not only to question the impact of these practices, but also to consider how these tensions between the sacred and the profane have existed historically. From ancient Judaism to Christianity, and now in modernity, the struggle to maintain reverence for the divine in the face of cultural trivialization is a theme that crosses different eras.

In this way, with our article we do not seek to impose moral judgments, but rather to open a space for reflection on the balance between respect for the sacred and genuine commitment to spiritual values, promoting a constructive questioning of contemporary practices.

Indeed, it is no coincidence that the second commandment in the Judeo-Christian tradition is “thou shalt not take the name of God in vain.” This commandment has deep historical and cultural roots linked to the context of the time in which it was given to the people of Israel. In ancient cultures, a deity or the name of a person was not just an identification, but had toponymic bases and foundations, as it defined its essence in relation to culture, geographical context, tradition and genealogy. Examples of this are: Jesus of Nazareth, the Nazarene or the Galilean; John and James (Sons of Thunder or Zebedee); Judas the Iscariot; Mary Magdalene (from Magdala, a city near the Sea of ​​Galilee); Paul of Tarsus, among others.

In its historical-cultural essence, “taking the name of God in vain” implied a distancing from pagan religions, which used names of gods to swear falsely, lie, cast curses or practice magical-religious rituals. This commandment protected the Israelites from adopting these practices, making it clear that YHWH’s name was not to be used in a trivial or superstitious manner. This belief of Judaism, later assumed by Christianity, constitutes an explicit mechanism of cultural differentiation with polytheism with pagan roots. By establishing standards like this, the God of Israel distanced himself from pagan deities, emphasizing that He was unique, holy, and should not be manipulated or reduced to a human instrument.

“Do not take God’s name in vain”, in the context of Judaism, represented a form of protection of justice and community trust, where oaths were an essential part of social and economic life. The oath prohibited using God’s name in a vain way or to promise something that would not be fulfilled. Furthermore, in a context where leaders could invoke God to legitimize decisions or actions, the commandment protected the people from religious or political manipulations in the name of God.

“Do not take the name of God in vain” sought to prevent the name of God from becoming something banal, as happened in idolatrous contexts where the names of the gods were constantly invoked for human interests.

In short, in Israel’s ethical and religious system, “not taking the name of God” invoked the centrality of God in life. It was a respect for the name of God, not subject to human whims or interests, and, in particular, a safeguard so that the name of God was not used as an instrument of manipulation.

The commandment not to take God’s name in vain arose in a cultural context where the name had significant power, and the relationship between God and Israel was central to the lives of the people. To protect God’s name was to protect his holiness, social justice, national identity and the divine covenant. This commandment, in its original context, drew a clear line between the sacred use of God’s name and the trivial, manipulative, or idolatrous practices of other cultures, establishing a standard of reverence and authenticity for the people of Israel.

Is “not taking God’s name in vain” an ancient or past practice? In modernity, this practice with pagan roots is more powerful than ever.

The commercialization of the name of God is an inherent part of the daily life of our time. In the commodification of faith, there is often the presence of people who exploit the name of God or faith for financial gain, selling products or services that lack authenticity or genuine spirituality. The use of marketing appealing to the name of God or religious symbols in a superficial way to promote brands or products is increasingly common. Christmas is the period where the instrumental use of God is most intensified.

Religious and political leaders invoke the name of God to justify selfishness, wars, discrimination or policies contrary to the principles of justice, love and compassion. In the name of God and morality, millions of Christians in the United States and abroad made common cause with Donald Trump, antithesis of all the values ​​upheld by Christian tradition and the gospels.

To “take God’s name in vain” is to attribute to him responsibilities that correspond to human actions, such as justifying tragedies, wars, military interventions or injustices in his name.

“Taking God’s name in vain” also occurs when people in religious authority exercise spiritual violence by manipulating others and using God’s name to impose control or abuse, especially towards children and women.

The superficial use on social networks of quotes and memes without conviction, solely with the intention of obtaining “likes” or increasing the number of followers, without a true spiritual, ethical and social commitment, is today one of the crudest forms of the use of the “name of God in vain.” This is the religiosity of appearances: the quest to project a pious image on social networks while acting in a contradictory way in real life.

On the other side of social media is the irreverent satirization and mockery of God’s name or religious symbols. This satirization occurs through crude, mocking or derogatory humor, through art and entertainment in productions that trivialize or decontextualize faith and the name of God for cultural or commercial impact.

In the Dominican Republic, a famous television program has been aired every day for many years, in which the use of God’s name in vain is expressed in all its fullness. In this program, God is invoked to create an environment and expectation of spirituality and respect. However, a few minutes later a message contrary to values ​​associated with reverence for God is promoted, such as sexism, the egomania of its entertainers or guest figures, this is a clear contradiction with the true centrality of God. This reflects a superficial or strategic use of God’s name, possibly to attract an audience, rather than a true intention to glorify Him.

Invoking God in a program to give it an appearance of seriousness or devotion, and then proceeding with content that has no relation to that invocation, can be a way of trivializing the sacred. The opening prayer and the promotion of activities associated with excesses or banalities is a clear manifestation that the use of God’s name is not genuine, but rather utilitarian.

Friedrich Nietzsche’s philosophy, particularly his declaration of the “death of God”, and the concept of taking God’s name in vain can be indirectly related by reflecting on the transformation of the meaning of the divine and coherence with spiritual values. Although the contexts of both topics are different, there are interesting points of connection.

Friedrich Nietzsche’s conception of the death of God has been interpreted as philosophical atheism. However, Nietzsche does not literally proclaim the death of a physical God, but rather the disappearance of the belief in an absolute God as the center of values ​​and meaning in Western life. It is a criticism of a Western culture in decline and the prophetic announcement of the future of modernity and scientific rationality that strip traditional religion of its explanatory and normative power. It is the clear denunciation of a crisis of values, where norms and ethical systems, which for centuries were based on God, are now left without their transcendental basis, especially in the Western world with Judeo-Christian roots. In essence, Nietzsche fiercely criticized organized religion, particularly Christianity, for what he perceived as hypocrisy and moral dishonesty. For him, many invoked God but did not live according to the values ​​they claimed to profess.

Nietzsche anticipated modernity’s pagan practice of using God’s name in vain, with the presence of religious practices that lack authenticity and move away from a deep commitment to spiritual values ​​and the transformation of the world. It is not a theological reflection on faith that Nietzsche presents to us, but rather a philosophical and cultural critique of the trivialization and emptying of faith in modernity.