Book Excerpt: “The First Thanksgiving We Don’t Remember”

Happy Thanksgiving! This morning I was paging through my copy of The First Thanksgiving: What the Real Story Tells Us About Loving God and Learning From History by Robert Tracy McKenzie (read my brief review here). I found the section where McKenzie concludes that what we remember traditionally as “the first Thanksgiving” was more like an autumn harvest festival in Plymouth. The Pilgrims themselves would never have deemed that festival as an actual holy day devoted to Thanksgiving and public worship. McKenzie notes: “That contemporary Americans are disposed to see this as a distinction without a difference says a lot about our values, not the Pilgrims’.” (pg. 141)

Following this observation, McKenzie’s next section title is the title of my post: “he First Thanksgiving We Don’t Remember.” I want to share some selections from this section and encourage you to pick up McKenzie’s book.

From the Pilgrims’ perspective, their first formal celebration of a day of thanksgiving in Plymouth came nearly two years later, in July 1623. [We don’t remember that occasion because we] condense their story to three key events — the Mayflower Compact, the landing at Plymouth Rock and the First Thanksgiving — and quickly lose interest thereafter. In reality, the Pilgrims’ struggle for survival continued another two years…. Only weeks after their 1621 harvest celebration, the Pilgrims were surprised by the arrival of the ship Fortune. The thirty-five new settlers on board would nearly double their depleted ranks.

The good news was that several of the newcomers were loved ones from Leiden…. The bad news was… they had arrived with few clothes, no bedding or pots or pans, and “not so much as biscuit cake or any other victuals,” as [colony governor William] Bradford bitterly recalled…. rather than having “good plenty” for the winter [following the traditional “First Thanksgiving” (in Autumn 1621)], the Pilgrims, who had to provide food for the Fortune‘s return voyage and feed an additional thirty-five mouths throughout the winter, once again faced the prospect of starvation….

The harvest of 1622 provided a temporary reprieve from hunger, but it fell far short of their needs for the coming year, and by the spring of 1623 the Pilgrims’ situation was again dire. As Bradford remembered their trial, it was typical for the colonists to go to bed at night not knowing where the next day’s nourishment would come from. For two to three months they had no bread or beer at all, and “God fed them” almost wholly “out of the sea.”

Adding to their plight… for nearly two months it rained hardly at all. The ground became parched, the corn began to wither, and hopes for the future began dying as well. When another boatload of settlers arrived that July, they were “much daunted and dismayed” by their first sight of the Plymouth colonists, many of whom were “ragged in apparel and some little better than half naked.” The Pilgrims, for their part, could offer the newcomers nothing more than a piece of fish and a cup of water.

In the depths of this trial, the Pilgrims were sure of this much: it was God who had sent this great drought; it was the Lord who was frustrating their “great hopes of a large crop.” This was not the caprice of nature, but the handiwork of the Creator who worked “all things according to the counsel of His will” (Ephesians 1:11). Suspecting that he had done this thing for their chastisement, the community agreed to set apart “a solemn day of humiliation, to seek the Lord by humble and fervent prayer, in this great distress.

As [Edward] Winslow [Bradford’s assistant] explained, their hope was that God “would be moved hereby in mercy to look down upon us, and grant the request of our dejected souls.” He exulted, “But oh the mercy of our God, who was as ready to hear, as we to ask.” The colonists awoke on the appointed day to a cloudless sky, but by the end of the prayer service — which lasted eight to nine hours — it had become overcast, and by morning it had begun to rain. It would continue to do so for the next fourteen days. Bradford marveled at the “sweet and gentle showers… which did so apparently revive and quicken the decayed corn….”

Overwhelmed by God’s gracious intervention, the Pilgrims immediately called for another providential holiday. “We thought it would be great ingratitude,” Winslow explained, “[if we should]* content ourselves with private thanksgiving for that which by private prayer could not be obtained. And therefore another solemn day was set apart and appointed for that end; wherein we returned glory, honor, and praise, with all thankfulness, to our good God.” This occasion, likely held at the end of July 1623, perfectly matches the Pilgrims’ definition of a thanksgiving holy day….

Although we remember the Pilgrims’ 1621 celebration as the origin, at least symbolically, of our own Thanksgiving tradition, there is no evidence that they themselves ever repeated the observance… of a public, colony-wide harvest festival…

[But] In 1636 the Plymouth General Court authorized the governor to proclaim days of thanksgiving “as occasion shall be offered.”

~ quoted from, Robert Tracy McKenzie, The First Thanksgiving, p. 140-144. Words in brackets are added for clarity. Words in brackets with an asterisk are original.

McKenzie notes that “the celebration of days of thanksgiving never evolved into an annual holiday” in Pilgrim-led Plymouth Colony. And this was due partly to “their longstanding general aversion to the numerous holy days imposed (they believed) without scriptural warrant by the Catholic and Anglican churches” (p. 144-145). Yet as Christians we can learn much from their heart-felt observance of true days of thanksgiving.

Thanksgiving as an annual feast of giving thanks, as celebrated by our culture, is a helpful corrective to our secular age. But sadly, this day is no “solemn holy day” of true thanks giving to God, such as the Pilgrims (first in 1623, and at other times) celebrated. We can enjoy the harvest-festival nature of modern Thanksgiving, but may we carve out adequate time to follow our Pilgrim forefathers and truly thank and worship our God who protected the Pilgrims and who cares for us as well.

Quotes to Note 41: Nothing Greater to Believe in but Ourselves

Robbed of a broader meaning to our lives, we appear to have entered an era of mass obsession, usually with ourselves: our appearance, our health and fitness, our work, our sex lives, our children’s performance, our personal development…. [We have created] a culture that gives [us] nothing greater than [ourselves] to believe in — no god, no king, no country.

These words were spoken 25 years ago by an Australian academic, but they still ring true today. If anything, social media and the internet has fueled that personal obsession. Now more than ever, our poverty is exposed: “nothing greater than ourselves to believe in.”

I stumbled across this quote in a book I recently read, A Doubter’s Guide to the Ten Commandments: How, For Better or Worse, Our Ideas about the Good Life Come from Moses and Jesus by John Dickson (Zondervan, 2016). Intrigued, I hunted down the source: Richard Eckersley’s article “Youth and the Challenge to Change: Bringing Youth, Science and Society Together in the New Millennium” in the Apocalypse? No essay series published by Australia’s Commission for the Future (July, 1992).

Dickson, is an Australian himself, and is a fellow of Ancient History at Macquarie University, the founding director of the Centre for Public Christianity, and senior minister of St. Andrew’s Roseville. He describes Eckersley’s essay as “a famous government report on Australian youth” and goes on to say: “I remember the report so well because it came out the year before my [book] A Sneaking Suspicion, an attempt to explain the relevance of Christianity for teenagers. The report helped frame some of my thinking, then and now” (A Doubter’s Guide, p. 161).

I want to share a longer excerpt from Eckersley’s essay, which I found is available online in a scan of the publication on Eckersley’s website, here.

Eckersley starts by recounting his reaction at coming back to Australia after several years in Africa, Asia and Europe:

My first reaction on flying into Sydney from Bangkok was one of wonder at the orderliness and cleanliness, the abundantly stocked shops, the clear-eyed children, so healthy and free of the cares of living. Later, however, this celebration of the material richness of life in Australia gave way to a growing apprehension about its emotional harshness and spiritual desiccation. By ‘spiritual’, I don’t necessarily mean believing in God (I am not myself a practicing member of any religion), but having a deep sense of relatedness to the world around us.

…I became aware of the cultural myths that define and support our society. For most of us in the west, the poverty of Africa and Asia is synonymous with misery and squalor; yet it is not. We see their people as crippled by ignorance, cowed by superstition, and oppressed by the harshness of their raw environment; we don’t see the extent to which we are crippled by our rationalism, cowed by our lack of superstition (spiritual beliefs) and oppressed by our artificial environment. (p. 3)

Eckersley goes on to paint a stark picture of the current age (in 1992). Later in the essay he gets to the section from which the opening quote above is taken.

When a society fails to imbue people’s lives with a sense of worth and meaning, then they must attempt to find these qualities as individuals. It is a task that many find extremely difficult, even impossible. People want to know what is expected of them; they need to have something to believe in.

This absence of belief in much beyond ourselves, and the consequent lack of faith in ourselves, are undermining our resilience, our capacity to cope with the more personal difficulties and hardships of everyday life.

Robbed of a broader meaning to our lives, we appear to have entered an era of mass obsession, usually with ourselves: our appearance, our health and fitness, our work, our sex lives, our children’s performance, our personal development.

The consequences of this loss of belief are more serious, I believe, for the young than for grown-ups… [They are] particularly vulnerable to the uncertain culture of our times. (p. 14)

He quotes a study exploring the state of Australia’s youth, and concludes:

But perhaps the most disturbing finding of the study concerns young people’s moral sense. Mackay found that they believed that moral values were in decline, and often found it hard to identify an accepted moral framework within the community — unless they were religious. Moral responsibility to ‘the group’ is much stronger than to ‘the community’, Mackay says:

“Thus the ethical sense is rooted in a social sense, but that social sense is very limited, very transient, and very fragile. Lacking a broader sense of ‘the community’, many young people have difficulty in establishing an ethical framework which has any application beyond the boundaries of their own immediate circle of friends.” [italics original to the article]

The picture that emerges from the Mackay study is of a youth culture that may be meeting the needs of its members in terms of providing them with meaning and an identity, but only just. It is of a culture that is barely holding together, certainly not enduring — a mass-media culture marked by frenetic fashions and polarisation between self-destructive recklessness and abandon, and a more insidiously debilitating cautiousness, social withdrawal and self-centredness. (p. 15)

He then turns to a July 1990 article in Time focusing on “a new generation of young American adults grappling with its values.”

…According to Time, a prime characteristic of today’s young adults is their desire to avoid risk, pain and rapid change. They feel paralysed by the social problems they see as their inheritance: racial strife, homelessness, AIDS, fractured families and federal deficits….

It may be, then, the greatest wrong we are doing to our children is not the broken families or the scarcity of jobs (damaging though these are), but the creation of a culture that gives them nothing greater than themselves to believe in — no god, no king, no country — and no cause for hope or optimism…. (p. 15)

Eckersley goes on to summarize the problems of society and looks for a cure in an optimistic embrace of science and technology — and, ironically, his hope rests ultimately in mankind = ourselves!

The growing crisis facing western societies is, then, deeply rooted in the culture of modern western societies: in the moral priority we give to the individual over the community, to rights over responsibilities, the present over the future (and the past), the ephemeral over the enduring, the material over the spiritual.

Our cultural flaws and confusion both reflect and reinforce our economic, social and environmental problems. They also undermine our ability to resolve them effectively. Unless we forge a new culture, then it is unlikely we will overcome these problems because we will lack the will, the moral courage, to confront them….

…I believe that the problem rests more with our immaturity in using a cultural tool as powerful as science, and I am hopeful that with growing experience and wisdom, together with advances in science itself, we can create a more benign and complete culture, and so a more equitable and harmonious society. (p. 19)

Eckersley explores physics and how “a more flexible approach” has arisen in “how we use science.” An approach he approves of that allows for finding “purpose — or ‘God’ — in the world described by science.” (p. 23). He hopes this scientific endeavor may:

allow us to create new concepts for expressing religious or spiritual beliefs, different from, say, the traditional notion of a supreme being ‘out there’ watching over us, and judging us — metaphysical metaphors more appropriate to our times and our understanding.

Even now, however, science and spirituality are not mutually exclusive. I think it is less science and the scientific view of the world that cripple us spiritually than it is the busyness and artificiality of our modern lives, the all pervasive manifestations of rationality — an environment that we have created through science. (p. 23-24)

He goes on to focus on environmentalism and how mainstream science is clarifying the need for care of the environment, a cause young people can rally around. His essay aims to change science too, but ultimately the solution is what we make of it. Believing in ourselves and our ability to create a better culture — that is all that people can cling to apart from a religious worldview, such as what we have in Christianity.

I share this long excerpt from this decades old article to make a point. The long decline of our culture has been happening for a long time. There is something missing, and Christians have found the answer in Jesus Christ.

We have a God, a King, and a Heavenly Country to believe in – and that gives us great cause for hope and optimism. We don’t ground our hope in creating a social and cultural dynamic that frees us from the self-obsession of our age. Our ultimate hope, instead, is found in the precious promises we have in Scripture — promises that our God-King, Jesus Christ pledges to fulfill on our behalf.

As citizens of a greater Country, we must resist the urge to focus our hopes only on this present age and our own country — whether Australia or America. We need to work for the good of our city, and shine the light of Christ as we brighten the corner where we are, but we must always remember our faith lies in Someone greater and Something grander. Our obsession must center on our God-King, Jesus Christ. He is the one who calls us to live out our lives with ultimate purpose and meaning as we journey toward our Heavenly Country.

Sermon Download: A Strong Encouragement to Hope

This past Sunday I had the opportunity to fill the pulpit at our church. This was the first Sunday after the US Supreme Court made gay marriage legal nationwide. That isn’t the theme of my message but does come across in the introduction. Now, more than ever, Christians are being challenged to persevere and to keep believing. It is easier than ever to give in and to shirk from affirming Scripture as our highest authority. Hebrews was addressed to believers in a similar boat – they were faced with pressure to conform and some were slinking back from total commitment.

If you don’t have time to listen to the entire sermon (48 minutes), please do look over my notes. May God bless this sermon to all who hear it, for His glory and by His grace.

Place: The Heights Church, St. Paul
Date: June 28, 2015
Title: A Strong Encouragement to Hope
Text: Heb. 6:9-28
Notes: Download PDF
Audio Link: Click to listen (right click to download)

Responding to Gay Marriage

Everyone is sharing their thoughts on the Supreme Court’s recent decision to establish marriage as a right to any two people (regardless of gender). And from the intensity and number of both positive and negative reactions, this certainly does feel like a momentous step in our nation’s history. I wanted to bring together some rambling thoughts I’ve had on this issue and point to some resources that may prove helpful.

1) This is not a simple question.

Should we be against “gay marriage” in the civil arena? In light of developments and where we are now at, many Christians would say “of course!” But it isn’t as easy as that.

On this question I have been moved (in a humane way) by the desire of two people for mutual connection and a permanent relationship, and especially about their need for legal status when it comes to end of life scenarios and other important concerns. Some thought “civil unions” was a way to permit this and yet hold marriage for one man and woman, as it has always been. But that solution no longer is viable, it would seem. For more on this line of thinking (the plight of those who experience same-sex attraction) I strongly recommend Wesley Hill’s book Washed and Waiting: Reflections on Christian Faithfulness and Homosexuality (read my review here).

I have also been keenly aware of just how clear Scripture is on the nature of true marriage and the intent of marriage – to be a picture of Christ and the church. Redefining marriage doesn’t change its nature, it just lessens the idea and makes it more of a bland, pliable entity. Joe Carter explores that angle well in an article for Tabletalk called “Defining Marriage.”

A third consideration has been the futility of legislating morality. I can hold onto a biblical definition of marriage but allow others to have their own opinion – why do we have to force others to live up to Christian values? Additionally, should the church really be focusing so much on political questions? John Piper didn’t think so, and I agreed. Furthermore, focusing clearly on the marriage issue can tend to obscure the Gospel and imply that Christianity is just about morality. This is why I was leery of the Manhattan Declaration. Yet, morality and law do go together, some laws clearly are moral concerns. And encouraging a good society – protecting children and the rights of biological parents, these factors all make this particular issue (gay marriage) one that may very well be worth fighting, just from a pragmatic standpoint.

2) What about America?

Many Christians love America, and to a certain extent I do too. So how should we feel about our nation’s embrace of gay marriage?

Well, I agree with John Piper that we should weep over the “institutionalizing” of sin that it represents. And we should not be afraid of standing up for truth and owning the offense of the Cross.

But in another sense, America has always been a pagan nation. We can certainly pray for God to bless our country, but the direction she is going puts the lie to the commonly held assumption that America somehow deserves God’s blessing. Christians are citizens of a heavenly country, and God used this sociopolitical nation to advance his Church, just as he used other nations in other times. God is doing big things in other places, and we don’t have a corner on Him.

3) How is the Church to respond?

If you don’t click on any link in this post other than this one, that would be fine. Russell Moore’s article in the Washington Post is incredibly helpful with regard to this question: “Why the Church should neither cave nor panic about the decision on gay marriage.” Read that and be encouraged.

As for strategy when it comes to pastors and how they go about marrying heterosexual couples only and avoid legal troubles, I actually think Roger Olson’s proposal is worth considering. Be sure to read his follow up post too.

And of course, we should continue to resist the pressure to reinterpret the Scripture. Kevin DeYoung has given us a very helpful book that clearly explains the arguments being made that try to say the Bible doesn’t forbid homosexual practice. His book addresses the chief arguments and opens up the Scripture in a clear and forthright manner – and is careful to be charitable and loving in its tone. The book is from Crossway and is titled simply What Does the Bible Teach About Homosexuality?

Finally, we should not be surprised if we are misunderstood and hated. Jesus promised this: “If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. 19 If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.” (John 15:18-19). Persecution is promised: “Through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God” (Acts 14:22). A martyr complex will do us no good.

In conclusion, let me just share a link to a post I wrote on the occasion of gay marriage being legal in Minnesota. My comments there apply to today as well: “Marriage, Meaning and Minnesota: How to React to the News that Gay Marriage is Now Legal.”

Michael Kruger Responds to Newsweek’s “Desperate Swipe at the Integrity of the Bible”

Predictably, a major US magazine published a popular criticism of the Bible just in time for a biblical holiday. But the recent Newsweek cover article by Kurt Eichenwald, entitled “The Bible: So Misunderstood It’s a Sin,” is making waves for how ferocious and misguided its criticism actually is.

Evangelical scholar, Michael J. Kruger took issue with the article stating it “goes so far beyond the standard polemics, and is so egregiously mistaken about the Bible at so many places, that the magazine should seriously consider a public apology to Christians everywhere.”

Kruger’s two-part response to Eichenwald’s piece is worth reading. He is measured, calm and clear. The result is a defense of the faith against several of the popular attacks circulating in today’s world.

If you have time, look through the comments as well, the author of the Newsweek piece even shows up and Kruger is patient and careful in trying to address many of the issues raised in the comments section as well.

Here are links to Kruger’s posts.