Christingle II: candles v glowsticks

This isn't a revenge thing, I want to be clear on that. It's so often the case with sequels that part 2 is about revenge. If anything this is more like sequels in being a gratuitous attempt to cash in on previous efforts.

I've been thinking quite a bit about the merits of both candles and glowsticks, and trying to see some theology in it all. This isn't as mad as it may first appear: we have to remember that the whole idea of the Christingle is the symbolism that children can learn from. So let's recap:

The orange represents the world,
The red ribbon represents the blood of Christ,
The four cocktail sticks represent the four seasons, or the four directions on a compass (the four 'corners' of the world)
The sweets represent the gifts of God, either physical gifts like the sweets themselves, or spiritual gifts such as kindness and patience
The foil is apparently only there to catch the drips from the candle, although I remember one clever clogs suggesting that the foil reflected the candle light, and so it could represent us, reflecting Christ's light.
Finally we have the candle, or the glowstick, which symbolises the light itself, and is a reminder of Christ, "the light of the world".

So, candle and glowstick, the pros and cons:

The candle is traditional, it's the source of light that many people had to rely on in the days before electrickery, in fact candles have been around since before the incarnation (I was going to say since before Christ, but that would be stupid). They also have the advantage of being reusable, at least until the wick is burned away.  The candle is also dangerous -- which started this whole thing off -- there's the risk of burns from the flame or scalds from the hot wax.

Meanwhile the glowstick is much safer, unless you know someone with a habit of biting into plastic tubes to get to the yummy dibutyl phthalate, hydrogen peroxide, phthalic ester or phenyl oxalate ester. They are relatively modern too, and so they appeal to young people.  But glowsticks are a one-shot deal: once the glass vial inside has broken the various chemicals mix and a reaction takes place that causes the glow.  After the reaction has taken place the chemicals become inert (or inactive) and the glow fades.  It can't be reproduced in that one glowstick.

The question of  which is better isn't simple, we have to think theologically and practically?

Practically speaking, while the candle carries a greater likelihood of harm, it is reusable, less expensive to produce and won't end up in a landfill. As it's more socially responsible it probably just wins out over the glowsticks.

Theologically there isn't that much to choose between them: they both produce light, which is what this is all about; the glowstick will eventually fade, but the candle will eventually burn away to nothing, so neither one represents the eternal light of Christ very well; there are places where a candle cannot burn, such as under water or in windy conditions, but the glowstick better symbolises God's ability to shine in any place, and as such might just beat the candle.

Finally, I want to return to the issue of risk: we spend a good portion of our lives trying to assess our environment, staying in control of the risks, managing and minimising them at all costs. We want to be protected from dangers. The truth though is that God is dangerous.  God is not some amazing wish-granter that we can blow out when we've got what we want; and if we try to misuse him we will get hurt.

Whatever we use, we need to remember that our God should be respected at all costs, and to avoid the risks is to avoid Him, because we can't have one without the other.

We also need to include the tin foil, whether it's needed to catch the wax drips or not, because the reminder that we are there to reflect the light of Christ into the world is really very important.