Letters

Happy Thanksgiving: Truth, History & Ideologies

No doubt ideologies can easily clash over the holidays. We live with different ideas all year long, then come together. What happens for friendship or conflict is our own choice. Politically-inclined periodicals like to instruct readers on how to persuade family members either left or right. But, rather than the usual “gotcha” or “win arguments” campaign, here are some ways to win friendship and let Thanksgiving have its day. If you want instructions, follow these three steps…

1. Don’t argue:

When old relatives use politically incorrect terms from the past, prove how smart you are: You know what they mean, so you don’t need to correct them or even comment.

When people demonstrate different morals, don’t take the bait. If you think someone a fool, joining in an argument is joining a fool. Be mature. If you must debate, talk about the historical absence of cranberry sauce and the fact that the Pilgrims had neither pumpkin pie nor mashed potatoes since they didn’t have ovens. The Pilgrims at Plymouth actually developed as a fishing society since Massachusetts isn’t as friendly for farming as Jamestown, Virginia.

The early versions of today’s Thanksgiving recipes (pumpkin pie, stuffing, turkey, bread, mashed potatoes, and cranberry sauce) were introduced by writer Sara Josepha Hale (Marry had a Little Lamb) who started a three-decade campaign for the national holiday in 1827. George Washington had declared the first Thanksgiving on Thursday, November 26, 1789. Lincoln made Thanksgiving officially annual during the Civil War, 1863, setting it as the last Thursday in November. In 1939, FDR’s attempt to expand the shopping season by moving Thanksgiving up one week was not welcomed. In 1941 FDR made Thanksgiving the fourth Thursday in November. George H. W. Bush pardoned the first turkey to retire on a farm in 1989.

2. Talk about today’s political context:

Everything is changing. Refuse to get into any political or ideological debates since a. these change ever more dramatically from year to year and b. many recent ideologies have yet to be tested, therefore there is nothing to discuss, either pro or con.

3. Consider the political-ideological context of the first two British settlements:

The story of the Pilgrims simultaneously sides with and violates both right and left of today’s political scripts. The Pilgrims didn’t want the fickle establishment policing their religion. They had tried to live in the Netherlands starting in 1607, but that didn’t work out. Lacking money and concerned about losing their language to the Dutch, they sold stock, joined the London Company, and got permission from the Crown to leave for Hudson, near the already established Jamestown, Virginia. They were not funded by tax dollars, but they were governed by them.

The Speedwell had accompanied them to Amsterdam, but only the larger Mayflower would prove seaworthy to carry them on to the “New World”. After a 66-day voyage of hardship, the Pilgrims arrived, more or less, as beat-down western imperialists equipped with political and religious ideologies rather than a survival plan for the worst. They never made it to Hudson.

Having arrived too far north, they spent the first winter aboard the Mayflower in 1620. All but fifty-three of the 102 Pilgrims died that first winter. The natives, Wampanoag, were also farmers who helped them survive and taught them to plant their own crops the next year. Their secret was to use fish meal as fertilizer so they could grow better corn. This was important. The Pilgrims were not farmers in Britain nor did the Crown send many supply vessels. The Pilgrims’ welfare could not rely on government welfare.

According to the rules of the London Company (approved by the Crown), the Plymouth colony followed a principle called “common course”—the colony had a central grainery, each Pilgrim contributed what he could, then took what he needed. According to Richard Maybury’s “The Great Thanksgiving Hoax,” (1999) “common course” echoed Marxism’s from each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Due to local theft, little made it into the grainery.

John Carver was elected the Plymouth governor in 1621 and died that April. While William Bradford was out scouting for a colony location, the Mayflower was anchored at the tip of Cape Cod off Provincetown Harbor. His wife, still on the Mayflower, fell overboard and drowned. He was later elected governor which he held for subsequent years. In 1623, having starved from lack of corn, Plymouth had its fill of “common course”. Bradford writes:

All this while no supply was heard of, neither knew they when they might expect any. So they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery. At length, after much debate of things, the Governor (with the advise of the chiefest among them) gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves; in all other things to go in the general way as before. And so assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of the number, for that end, only for present use (but made no division for inheritance) and ranged all boys and youth under some family. This had very good success, for it made all hands industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression.

Their first Thanksgiving, in 1621, lasted three days, not celebrated the next year. The Pilgrims were first known as “Old Timers”. Bradford had journaled about them as “saints” and “pilgrimes” from Holland. Daniel Webster called them “Pilgrim Fathers” at the 200 year anniversary of Plymouth (1820) and the term stuck. The Pilgrims were the second English settlement.

The first colony had already started in Jamestown, Virginia, named after King James I and was led by Edward Winfeld and a council of six chosen by the company. The names were sealed until their arrival. They chose Jamestown as their location on May 13, 1607, while the Pilgrims were first beginning their exploits in Europe. Jamestown was Anglican and privately funded by the Virginia Company. The first wave of 104 men and boys had sailed aboard the Susan Constant, the Godspeed, and the Discovery, departing Dec 6, 1606, according to other sources, Dec 20 that year. Their main conflict was with the Powhatan tribe, but the Spanish were also a concern.

Winter of 1609-1610 was historically known as “Starving Time”; William Strachey tells 80-90% died from disease and starvation. Likely a hurricane had set a supply ship off course, which ran a reef in Bermuda to avoid sinking. It finally arrived May, 1610. Thanks to one of the Bermuda survivors, John Rolfe, who married Pocahontas, Jamestown’s Virginia Company became profitable with a non-native tobacco introduced in 1612.

The first legislative assembly met in 1619 at Jamestown Church. Beyond the governance of Virginia, the Pilgrims established New England and were self-governed by the Mayflower Compact. In 1624, after financial problems, Jamestown’s Virginia Company had their private charter revoked by the British Crown and remained a Royal colony until America’s Revolution.

The Puritain Pilgrims at Plymouth, Massachusetts in New England overcame death and finally thrived through friendship with the Wampanoag Indian farmers, by learning to farm their own food, by using fish as both their main trade and as corn fertilizer, lumbering, building ships, and encouraging women and children to work the fields through ownership of their own crops. The Anglicans at Jamestown, Virginia, near Chesapeake Bay, survived to become worthy of acquisition by the Crown, thanks to a triangle-shaped fort equipped with guns at each corner, Captain Christopher Newport’s ability to establish early peace with the Powhatan Indians through trade, the Powhatan chief’s daughter Pocahontas, then 11, saving John Smith’s life while Newport was away on the high seas to trade and bring more settlers, and by Pocahontas’ husband growing foreign tobacco for sales in England.

So, we have everything to be thankful for. After all, Thanksgiving would never give reason for controversy.

Sources and works consulted:

A Short History of Jamestown & Jamestown and Plymouth: Compare and Contrast (National park Service)

The Pilgrims & First Thanksgiving Meal (The History Channel)

Pilgrims, Squanto, William Bradford and Communism (Independent Sentinal)

Why the Pilgrims Abandoned Communism (Free Republic)

The Jamestown Chronicles Timeline (The Jamestown Chronicles)

Timeline History of Jamestown, Virginia

Devotionals, Letters

What about the Law and the Trials of the End Times?

People regularly quote Second Timothy Three: “You should know this, Timothy, that in the last days there will be very difficult times.” And Paul outlines much of the difficulties going on in the Roman Empire at the time. And people say, “These are difficult times! Paul must not have been talking about first century Roman Empire, but about twenty first century America (or Europe, or whatever).

Paul offering pastoral advice to his young protégé. He’s writing from prison, which means he’s writing in AD66 or AD67. And he’s telling Timothy, “Here’s how to pastor this kind of person (verses 8-15, same chapter).

So If Paul is telling Tim how to pastor these people, then “the last days” that he’s talking about in AD67 must be AD70, when the Jerusalem was destroyed, when the temple was destroyed, and most importantly, when the genealogies (which showed who was qualified to be a priest or even a Levite) were burned. Destroyed. Gone forever.

That was the “Last Days” that Paul was writing about. It’s not about now. It’s about the end of the Law.

Why in Heaven’s name would the apostle write pastoral advice for how to relate to a situation that was exactly what was going on in his day that minute, but give advice that would be about an event that wouldn’t happen for twenty centuries? That’s just silly.

Of COURSE he was writing to what was going on in Tim’s ministry right then.

---------------------------

So here’s the real question:

Given that the Law of the Old Covenant is dead and gone, given that the “Last Days” talked about in the Bible are generally about “the last days of the Old Covenant,”

HOW SHALL WE THEN LIVE.

Note: this is not a place to argue about whether you agree that the last days are behind us. This is an “If – then” question:

If the evil things and the “difficult times” that the New Testament writes about have already happened, what do we do with our lives?

That’s the question that really matters. If we’re going to focus on the days ahead, let's focus on what’s important.

Devotionals, Letters

What about the Law and the Trials of the End Times?

That was the “Last Days” that Paul was writing about. It’s not about now. It’s about the end of the Law.

Of COURSE he was writing to what was going on in Tim’s ministry right then.

---------------------------

So here’s the real question:

Given that the Law of the Old Covenant is dead and gone, given that the “Last Days” talked about in the Bible are generally about “the last days of the Old Covenant,”

HOW SHALL WE THEN LIVE.

Note: this is not a place to argue about whether you agree that the last days are behind us. This is an “If – then” question:

If the evil things and the “difficult times” that the New Testament writes about have already happened, what do we do with our lives?

That’s the question that really matters. If we’re going to focus on the days ahead, let's focus on what’s important.

Devotionals, Letters

Do We Still Pray for the Peace of Jerusalem?

Recently, a friend asked me, “Are we still required to pray for the peace of Jerusalem?” (as Psalm 122:6 says). I stopped to think about that question, and about Zionism in general. Here’s how my thinking went.

When the Old Covenant was in place, it was between one family – the children of Jacob – aka Israel) and God. (In fact, they resisted being called a “nation” until the 20th century.)

When the Old Covenant was in place, that family was the vehicle by which God related to the rest of the world. We’ll overlook the fact that Israel failed miserably in that task: it was their task. (Note that “The Law” was the “terms & conditions” of that Covenant. Note also that Israel failed so completely at that, that God was required by the terms of that covenant [which the people proposed, it was not God’s proposal] that he was required to judge them and punish them for failing to keep their covenant with Him. See http://nwp.link/1Ggenc6.)

And because Israel was the one primary means by which God related to humanity, they were the victim of many attacks, both political and demonic.

In that context, praying for the peace of Jerusalem – Jerusalem being in proxy for the nation/family of Israel – was praying for peace in the conduit between God and man. If Israel was at war, then Israel could not well represent God to the nations.

The Old Covenant is now over. It was “obsolete and growing old [and] ready to disappear,” [Hebrews 8:13] two hundred decades ago. And it was completely obliterated, totally eliminated when Jerusalem was destroyed in AD70 (the mortal wound: the destruction of all genealogical records of who’s qualified to be priest or Levite).

Fortunately, 40 years earlier, the Old Covenant was replaced by a New Covenant. In contrast, the New Covenant is not between God and one family, or between God and one nation, or between God and ANY nation. The New Covenant is between God the Father, and God the Son, and we’re included in the Covenant by being “in Christ,” in the Son.

In the New Covenant, there is only one commandment: John 15:12: “This is My commandment, that you love one another, just as I have loved you.” That’s it.

Paul, expounding on our covenant, urged Timothy, “First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity.” This is, in his estimation, part of how we “love one another,” and he’s right.

So the question is: “Is Jerusalem part of “all men”? Are there leaders who qualify as “all those who are in authority”? Do they need prayer? In my perception, the answer is “Yes!” to all three.

So yes, we pray for Jerusalem, for the same reason, and in the same way that we pray for Tehran, or New Orleans, or Milan or Pretoria.

We pray “on behalf of all men,” and we pray “for kings and all those who are in authority.”

But really (and I suspect some people won’t like this), Jerusalem is no more special than your hometown, and Israel is now no more special than Iraq or Dubai. And simultaneously, no less special.

Devotionals, Letters

Do We Still Pray for the Peace of Jerusalem?

When the Old Covenant was in place, it was between one family – the children of Jacob – aka Israel) and God. (In fact, they resisted being called a “nation” until the 20th century.)

And because Israel was the one primary means by which God related to humanity, they were the victim of many attacks, both political and demonic.

In the New Covenant, there is only one commandment: John 15:12: “This is My commandment, that you love one another, just as I have loved you.” That’s it.

So yes, we pray for Jerusalem, for the same reason, and in the same way that we pray for Tehran, or New Orleans, or Milan or Pretoria.

We pray “on behalf of all men,” and we pray “for kings and all those who are in authority.”

But really (and I suspect some people won’t like this), Jerusalem is no more special than your hometown, and Israel is now no more special than Iraq or Dubai. And simultaneously, no less special.

Devotionals, Letters

Judgement Day: Life in Review

This video is a reminder to me of a day that’s coming. I call it Big Screen Day. Some call it Judgement Day, but that doesn't fit so well for me.

I don’t actually know if my what I envision is theologically sound. I developed this expectation during a season when I was being taught a lot of foolishness, but this part remains with me.

I expect that there will be a day that I will stand before my Maker, who is also my dearest Friend, and together, we’ll examine my life, my years on Earth, from His perspective. I imagine my life being displayed on the big screen in His family room. It will be an edited version, of course. There are things that I remember, which He has already thrown into the Sea of Forgetfulness. They won’t be shown that day, or any other day: they’re gone. I won't miss them.

In that viewing, I’ll finally learn of the effects of my life on others around me, and the effect of my life, through them, on the people they influence, people that I’ve never met.

I’ve invested part of my life serving some pastors and some churches. On Big Screen Day, I’ll meet the people that I helped them disciple into the Kingdom. I’ve spent part of my life investing in a generation of believers who are following where I’ve gone. On Big Screen Day, I’ll see the fruit of that investment, and I’ll learn where my investment has gone.

I can’t imagine what that day will be like. I expect there will be tears, of one sort of another.

This man, Sir Nicholas Winton, has a a small part of his Big Screen Day early. He gets to meet some of the fruit of his investment in this life. During the War, he invested a good deal of his life rescuing children from the Nazi death camps. Here, he gets to meet them, some of them.

I can’t imagine what that must be like. I expect there were tears.

I try to make decisions in my life with Big Screen Day in mind. I try to live with Eternity in mind. I try to make choices that will make my Friend smile as we review my life. I try to choose things that won’t need to be edited out.

And once in a great while, I’ll turn to face where I imagine the Heavenly camera might be, and I’ll say some things to the audience watching that Big Screen, whether it’s just Him and me or whether it’s uncounted millions.

Have you given thought to that Day, the Day when you and your Maker will review your life? I’ll bet it will change how you live in this day. And if he’s your friend, I’ll bet you’ll love those changes.

Devotionals, Letters

Judgement Day: Life in Review

This video is a reminder to me of a day that’s coming. I call it Big Screen Day. Some call it Judgement Day, but that doesn't fit so well for me.

I don’t actually know if my what I envision is theologically sound. I developed this expectation during a season when I was being taught a lot of foolishness, but this part remains with me.

In that viewing, I’ll finally learn of the effects of my life on others around me, and the effect of my life, through them, on the people they influence, people that I’ve never met.

I can’t imagine what that day will be like. I expect there will be tears, of one sort of another.

I can’t imagine what that must be like. I expect there were tears.

Devotionals, Letters

Some Ways the Enemy Opposes God’s Kids

In the last few days, I’ve had interaction with a wide variety of folks:

· An author who insists that Christians are still obligated to obey the whole law, and how dare I declare that the Old Covenant is past!!!

· Some folks who are angry at me because I teach that God is good and kind and well-represented in Jesus.

· A friend who insists that the Resurrection was metaphorical, not literal.

· Several “unbelieving believers” whose whole world view is built on their poverty spirit and whose theme song seems to be “I can’t! I need someone to do it for me!”

· A “prophet” who is convinced that his job is pointing out fault in every congregation he visits (and who never visits a congregation a second time).

As I was reflecting on these, I felt Father’s sadness. “These are manifestations of the influence of an antichrist spirit,” he murmured softly.

I realized, that’s certainly not saying, “They’re the Antichrist!” or even “They’re possessed.”

It’s just acknowledging that these are some of the ways that an “anti-Christ” spirit works to influence God’s children. These are some of the accusations that the enemy makes against God, against Jesus, against the Cross.

As I reflected, the quiet voice continued, “How will you respond to them?” and I knew that my response must not include anger or rejection or resignation.

There is one thing that stood out in my heart in response. Sure, I must love them, but that’s not a real answer. The thing that stood out to me is that I need to be careful not to change my message in response to them. I must not react to them in anger, rejection, or resignation; I am not permitted to change my message because of them.

If I don’t speak of who God really is in me and to me, then it’s not really my testimony, it’s just empty words. If I soften the message in order to placate some, or if I sharpen it to make it hit others harder, then these voices that carry the echo of the antichrist have shaped my message, my heart. My message would likely carry further, but it would not carry the truth I want it to.

And then my voice would also carry a manifestation of the influence of an antichrist spirit. I’m thinking that this is not where I want to go. There be dragons down that path.

I'm working on keeping my message true. Your prayers - and your company - are invited.