https://churchandfamilylife.com/podcasts/6540dea48035f112bf38cdf8
Modern Thanksgiving was born out of the US Civil War – In
1863, Lincoln wanted the country to be thankful for the turning of the tide
post-Gettysburg and following his lead the government issued proclamations in
the 1870's.
In 1939 FDR moved the date up a week wishing to extend the
Christmas shopping season – and this remains the practice today.
In other words it's a familiar theme to us even today – it's
about the troops and the consumerist economy.
After all Mammon and the Sword are America's real religion,
its real sacraments, so it makes sense that Americans would be thankful.
As I have previously suggested, there's no problem with
having a fall celebration and given that culturally it's a time when people are
off work and it's convenient to gather – then by all means eat your turkey and
all the trimmings if that's what pleases you.
The Mayflower-Plymouth Pilgrim iconography was born out of
American Romanticism in the 1870's – the country was celebrating its centenary
and Jamestown and New Netherland (the older colonies) were not terribly
inspiring or unifying – an important point in the decade after the Civil War.
The Pilgrim story was and remains compelling though few understand it. To this
day I frequently meet Baptists who insist the Pilgrims were Baptists – which of
course they were not. This is only to suggest at how much it's all
misunderstood.
But neither were they Dominionist-driven Theonomists like
Scott Brown and the folks at the somewhat misleadingly named Church and Family website – these people
were formerly associated with Doug Phillips and Vision Forum. They're
Theonomists but (as a tactic) they don't fully reveal who they are and what
they're about to their audiences and consequently many of them don't really
understand what they're being sold. They just think it's good old fashioned
Bible Christianity with flag and family and all that – which isn't Bible
Christianity to begin with. But little do they understand the real theology and
motivations of these people. Scott Brown would have made a good car salesman –
he certainly has all the skills and demeanour for such a task.
The Pilgrims were separatists – these Theonomists most
certainly are not. It must be admitted that the Pilgrims were confused at
points, quickly lost their way and were subsumed by the more powerful interests
of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, but that's beside the point.
As Christians we're thankful every day and I reject the idea
of the state telling me when to be thankful – and all such expressions of civil
religion that Evangelicals just love and revel in. This rejection of the
holiday and the problems with the state calling for it become all the more
pertinent when you study the history and realize that in the end it is just
another nationalist mammon-driven scam.
In reality we all know the celebration is really a national
day of gluttony and for most it's about overeating and football. Some enjoy the
familial aspects, others dread it.
In my house we ignore it and have for more than a quarter
century. We often get Chinese food or today we're eating enchiladas and going
for a hike in the woods. That said, if invited over someplace we might go –
again with the understanding that in the end it's really just a secular
holiday. Fine, I'll come and eat some turkey and enjoy the company but it's not
a holy day.
But what about Brown and his fellow Dominionists? No, they
want to redeem this largely farcical holiday – as if that were possible. How do
they do this? With the Bible? No, that's not possible. The motivation isn't
even there. So what's their approach and why?
In good Constantinian fashion they want to transform it and make it great again – evoking Trump's
motto but applying it to Thanksgiving. Of course this is assuming that either Thanksgiving
or America were ever 'great' to begin with. Oh, how this Babelish pride is so
easily sanctified.
They lament the 'disappearance' of Thanksgiving but I cannot
fathom why. They are advocates of Free Market Capitalism as their other
productions make abundantly clear. Let's face it, the market is limited. The
mammonist culture that is America cannot make a lot of money on the holiday –
it's pretty limited to grocery stores. And as Halloween and Christmas have
eclipsed it, then so be it. A good utilitarian ethic says it must be right if
that's what the people want, if that's what fills the need. It's just people
'voting' with their dollars they might say.
Thanksgiving falls in between Halloween and Christmas. Why
not petition to move the date back to the first week of November or even before
Halloween and then the Christmas retail season can be longer. What difference
does it make? It's all made up anyway.
To suggest it has been 'canceled' is pretty ridiculous. It's
a case of more Right-wing whining. There are discussions in academia regarding
colonization and certainly Columbus was a nasty sort that should not be
venerated by Christians (I won't apologize for saying that) and yet it's clear
enough in the culture that the day is celebrated and a major US holiday. I
certainly don't see any popular resistance.
These Dominionists also seem to forget that a good deal of
the population at Plymouth was not part of the Separatist movement – unless
they want to frame the event in terms of Kuyperian Common Grace, but I don't
think so. The point is, the whole Plymouth arrangement isn't nearly as
Christian as they would make it out to be and it was a little more complicated
than their narratives will allow.
As far as the Mayflower Compact – there's nothing to say it
was correct and in fact in many respects it typifies the confusion of the
Pilgrim Fathers and the general theological error among the Reformed at that
time. This was fully on display just a few years later with the completely
misguided and unbiblical Scottish Covenants that birthed (in blood) the
Covenanter movement and its tarnished legacy.
And the Mayflower Compact really had little if anything to do
with the founding of the United States one hundred and fifty years later. The
ethos and ideology of the Pilgrims has nothing to do with the Classical Liberal
ideology of the American Founders. Their notions of government and society were
rooted in completely different notions and based on different foundations. The
Rebellion of 1776 was not religiously motivated. It was about notions of
'rights' and anger over taxation and other legislative issues – ideas and
arguments both foreign to the New Testament and rejected by it.
The Pilgrim story is inspiring but I fail to see why these
men would find it so or want to claim it. I suspect their motives.
If one wants to read accounts of the Pilgrims – that's fine
but I hope they realize the connection to the Federal holiday of Thanksgiving
Day is not actually historical but again, a manipulation of later generations
that effectively hijacked their iconography and attached it to the day to
generate emotions and to create a narrative for America.
So again, the whole thing is actually a farce and worse it's
rooted in lies and in some cases rather wicked things like war and mammon.
Again, if it's just families gathering because of a common
day off with a slight nod to the agrarian past and times of harvest – fine. But
now if you're going to weave a narrative of deception about the whole thing and
give it a Christian gloss that is then further confused by associations with
the state and even heretical notions of history and politics – then no, I
refuse to take part.
The fact that at the 18:00 minute mark the one guest turns it
into a quasi-worship service is problematic – now you're keeping days, and
again days that effectively are a denial of Scriptural Sufficiency. If we need
to celebrate so-called Thanksgiving Day, then we would have been told to do so –
brethren, set aside days of remembrance
and thanksgiving for special times of worship and celebration – and encourage
Caesar to do so.
It's ridiculous and such notions are not even within the
scope of concern in the New Testament. The Bible is not the source or
foundation for these folks advocating their hyped-up version of Thanksgiving.
This is about culture war and a Constantinian view of civilization, and
listening, I'm wondering if I'm hearing a bit of the Feasting Triumphalism so
characteristic in the ethos of Dominionism and Postmillennialism and the
latter's over-realized eschatology.
If costume buffoonery and other religious-flavoured carnival
antics are what these people think is so great (18:00-20:00), then they would
do well to revisit the Middle Ages – something the likes of Doug Wilson are
keen to do. The Medieval period is characterized by a culture with a Christian
veneer and yet it was more like an inoculation – enough Christianity that the
real message had little hope of getting through. God was on everyone's lips but
far from their hearts. Everyone thought they were Christian and yet almost no
one was. That at least was the traditional understanding among conservative Protestants
– another reason why the period was referred to as the Dark Ages – a period
that was not celebrated or emulated.
There's nothing wrong with dressing up in costumes and playing
games – as long as it's not some kind of pseudo-masculine-militarist thing
which is become more and more popular in their circles. But again, how is this
Christian, how is this tied in with the Sufficiency of Scripture? If you're
going to argue that it is – then the concept itself explodes and the sky is the
limit. The concept no longer has any real meaning if it simply means a starting
point that can be developed in any number of directions. With this
understanding, Rome has a very viable and even venerable argument to make. Rome
after all affirms the Scriptures as the authoritative Word of God – but it
denies its sufficiency and thus innovates. The difference here is not in
substance but in degree.
At roughly the 20:00 mark it's suggested that if we 'cancel'
things like Halloween, we have to replace them with something better.
Why is that? It does not follow.
In fact, the rejection of these things is a testimony against
them and to our neighbours. To try and replace them with some kind of
over-the-top Reformation Day (what another Holy Day?) celebration isn't fooling
anyone. It seems sleight-of-hand because it is. And it must be said again, the
Magisterial Reformation has also been heavily romanticised. Listening to his
descriptions of Thanksgiving celebrations I'm almost driven to say that the
memory of these men and these events is being trivialised. If it really is a
solemn affair, then they're effectively mocking it – and then to confuse these
juvenile antics with hymn singing @23:00 – it strikes me as akin to sacrilege.
And of course we have to incorporate some guns @26:00 – what
could be more Christian than that?
For those who want to deal with this topic in a more serious
manner I recommend (for starters) Nathanael Philbrick's 2006, Mayflower: A Story of Courage, Community,
and War.
It follows the Plymouth story into the Massachusetts Bay
period (1630) and up to King Philip's War (1675-1676). The Pilgrims lose a bit
of their romantic gloss and yet the story is important and instructive. It's
messy to say the least. Read it and then you'll see how foolish these people
are in their dress-up understanding of these events and how astray they are in
their grasp of the Kingdom and the application of Scripture to the Christian
Life, worship, and the reading of history. They're interested in myths about
Christendom and America and Brown's egregious call to read statements by George
Washington in connection with your family's Thanksgiving dinner further demonstrates
this.
Someone might say at this point – what is your problem? Why
are you condemning people for trying to make the most out of a holiday and
combine what they do (feasting and fun) with Scripture and so forth?
This is to miss the point. There are underlying assumptions
which undergird why they're asking these questions, how they're reading
Scripture, and how they're interacting with the culture and with history. If
you understand this, it casts these questions, these discussions, and their
actions in a very different light.
The passages about doing all to the glory of God need be
revisited and re-read. They've been misunderstood and torn from context. The
doing all to the glory of God is about self-denial in our relationships and
conduct. Modern Evangelicalism (and the Dominionist movement which inspires it)
has perverted these passages and their concepts.
For my part I thank God every day regardless of what day of
the week it is or what the government tells me to do or not do. The family
gathering nearest us is a wretched gluttonous affair dominated by misbehaved
dogs that we do not enjoy and so we avoid it. For me it's a day to be thankful
because we can get some extra sleep. Some years I have worked but that's not
always option. We will spend the day as a family – just as we would any other
day off. Praise be to God – but it's not a special day.
I will not bind the consciences of others and say it's wrong
to gather for Thanksgiving but I do condemn the posture taken by Scott Brown
and his Dominionist cohorts. And I will not be bound in my conscience to
celebrate a day that is a sham, nor will I take up the yoke of financial
burdens and consumer frenzy in order to make it all 'just so' and buy the foods
that everyone feels compelled to eat. Scott Brown is so thankful to be an
American so he can revel in his theologized myths. For my part, I'm a true New
Covenant Pilgrim and citizen of Zion. America may be where I live as well as
many of my ancestors but I do not call it my home. I am actually a Mayflower
descendant – from John Alden and Priscilla Mullins and yet like the apostle I
count such heritage as dung and have no confidence in the flesh.
Finally, does not the apostle speak to this in Romans 14? No,
he does not. This passage is frequently misused and utilised as a fig-leaf for
all manner of innovations and cultural syncretism. Paul was dealing with Mosaic
retention and debates over kosher laws, Sabbath, and other Jewish holidays. It
would all be moot in a few years when the old order was permanently ended in
AD70. Christians were bound to tolerate their weaker brethren that still felt
bound to keep these practices – but their consciences were rightly clear and
should not be brought into bondage. God accepted the worship of these Jewish
Christians who in misguided sincerity still felt bound to keep aspects of the
Law. They keep the day as to the Lord just as the Gentile Christians did not
keep Sabbath or the other days associated with the Jewish calendar and that was
fine too and actually a sign of maturity. The passage suggests that some of
these brethren (presumably in Church gatherings) would eat only herbs and would
eschew the meat contaminated by contact with the pagan markets or the wine used
in libations.
Paul argues here and in 1 Corinthians 8 that the meat can be
eaten. We're not subject to the superstitions of the pagans but this had nothing
to do with the question of worship, nor does he for a moment suggest we should
demonstrate our disregard for their superstitions – by appropriating and transforming
their superstitions. This is effectively the argument that is given today – and
it really is rather absurd when one looks at it. In an exercise of what might
be called wish-eisegesis, they are reading a great deal into these passages
that just isn't there and in many cases have inverted its meaning.
Nowhere does Paul suggest that the Church should invent holy
days and/or borrow from and transform pagan ritual days. It's not even in his
mind or on the table and it is a gross (and sometimes wicked) perversion of
Scripture to suggest that those who reject Christmas and other contrivances are
somehow 'weaker brethren' because they refuse to go along with it. What a
travesty and what a shame that so many Bible teachers fall for this bogus
exegesis and in turn extrapolate teachings that aren't to be found in the text.
It is not what is being taught in the passage nor does it even remotely
resonate with the rest of the teaching found in the epistles.
Romans 14 grants no comfort or vindication to the defenders
of such holidays. It's not that I'm of the weaker brethren and they the strong
or vice versa. They're outside the scope of the discussion in Romans 14. The
problem is they've adopted the hermeneutics and theological methodology of the
Hellenistic Judaizers condemned throughout the apostolic writings – the kind of
practices being condemned in the Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia.