Two Quotes from R. L. Dabney

I've been reading some of R. L. Dabney's Discussions and I thought I'd share two good quotes from him to whet your appetite for this very insightful man (he's not good on everything, but amazing when he's right).

From his essay The Standard of Ordination written in 1891, "In one word, if anything is made clear in the Bible concerning ministerial duty, this is clear: that Christ has appointed the pastors and evangelists of his church to be the teachers of religion to men, the appointed school-masters of the world in the one science of theology. But as Lord Bacon shows, this is the splendid apex of the whole pyramid of human knowledge. It is the mistress of all sciences to whom all the rest are tributary, history, ethnology, zoology, geology, literature, and especially philosophy, her nearest handmaid. The mistress must dominate all and rule all lest, becoming insurrectionary, they should use their hands to pull down the foundations of her throne. The teachers of the supreme science must not be ignorant of any other science. They ought to be strong enough to lead the leaders of all secular thought; for if they do not, the tendencies of the carnal mind will most assuredly prompt those secular leaders to array their followers against our King and his gospel.”

From his essay The Uses and Results of Church History written in 1854 (I'll probably use this sometime concerning food), "Those things which are the most operative elements of social, national and religious welfare are just the things which historians have been least careful to record. The knowledge of them has, in many cases, perished away for ever from our search. In secular history, battles, sieges, coronations, conquests, treaties; and in ecclesiastical history, councils and their canons, controversies and anathemas, have been the favorite themes of the story. But the food which nations ate, the clothing they wore, their domestic life, the state of domestic discipline, their arts, agriculture and amusements, the method of their devotions, their superstitions, the hymns they sang, the preaching to which they listened, the books they most read, the color of the national and social passions, the pecularities of the national spirit; all these every-day and homely influences are the causes which potentially form the character and compose that mighty current of the age on which kings, battles, conquests and conquerors are but the floating bubbles which indicate its motion. But all this historians have usually left to die with the passing time, as if it was unworthy of the dignity of their drama."

http://www.dabneyarchive.com/

Oikos-baptism

Now that I have been writing for a year and a half I think I can touch this controversial subject (not like I haven’t been controversial before). I don’t think the timing of baptism is a major issue by itself, although it is often a sign of larger problems in how we think of families and the church. This won’t be comprehensive, but hopefully it will be a good introduction to the subject. And hopefully this post will edify, not divide.

You might be a little confused by the title of this post. First, let me explain some terms. Paedo-baptism is the doctrine that children of believers should be baptized (paedo = child), while credo-baptism is the doctrine that only those who make a credible profession of faith should be baptized (credo = believe). I think paedo-baptists put themselves at a slight disadvantage with that name, as the primary point isn’t that children of believers should be baptized. The larger point is that children of believers should be baptized because they are members of households, the households of those with credible professions of faith, that should be baptized. This is why I would prefer to call myself an oikos-baptist (oikos = household) (you can call me a paedo-baptist, but I think oikos-baptist might be a more helpful term). Briefly stated, baptism is the sign and seal of the covenant of grace, and the covenant of grace is not only made with individuals, but with their families as well. In the Old Testament, whether it was Adam and Eve (Gen. 3:15), Noah (Gen. 6:18; 9:9), Abraham (Gen. 17:7, 11-13), Moses and the Israelites (Deut. 29:10-15), or David (2 Sam. 7:12, 29), the covenant not only included the individual, but his household and offspring. Then when we get into the New Testament we see this pattern continued with verses like,

And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” (Acts 2:38-39, emphasis added)

The Lord opened her [Lydia’s] heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul. And after she was baptized, and her household as well, she urged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” And she prevailed upon us. (Acts 16:14-15, emphasis added)

Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family. Then he brought them up into his house and set food before them. And he rejoiced along with his entire household that he had believed in God. (Acts 16:30-34, emphasis added) (Notice “he had believed God”, but “all his family” was baptized.)

Credo-baptists will often point out that there are not explicit examples of infants being baptized in the New Testament. But using the Old Testament as a background, and knowing that the covenant of grace (and the covenant of works) had always been made with households before, it is the credo-baptists that need to supply the proof that a believer's family was purposefully excluded from baptism. And to my knowledge there isn’t an example or teaching of that.

As result of oikos-baptism and covenantal thinking we can have Christian families. The family becomes more unified, and receives a greater emphasis than it would otherwise. As baptism is the public initiation into the visible covenant community (the church), the whole family is regarded as part of the church. The church is then largely made up of households, and not merely individuals. Children of believers are accepted as Christians (even before baptism, thus they receive baptism), as members of the church, unless they apostatize (and it must be remembered that the covenant can work as a greater curse to those who apostatize, Malachi; Deut. 28:15-68; Acts 7:51-53).

This doctrine of household baptism and the covenantal doctrine that it flows out of has a great influence on our method of discipleship. Discipling your children is not so much like evangelizing heathen, as much as it is to teach them to, “give diligence to make your calling and election sure” (2 Peter 1:10). Using my last post’s example, it is to grow the subjective communion of life with God in faith, of which the objective covenant relationship is a sign and seal. As children in the covenant, we learn to repent of our sins, and believe, love, and obey God as a way of life, not trusting in baptism, in obedience, not even in faith for salvation, but trusting and believing in the saving work of Christ alone for salvation. For some, this faith might come later in life, while for others it may happen at, and even before birth (Luke 1:41,44; 2 Sam. 12:23; Ps. 22:9-10; 71:5-6), but regardless, we are called to accept our covenant responsibilities now and always, to trust God and rely on His grace. Christian parents have hope in the promise of God to be their children’s God, and they have the responsibility to bring up their children to share in the life of the covenant. In fact, their efforts to disciple should be encouraged by this hope of it actually succeeding by the grace of God.

With all that said, I do recognize that we are not always consistent with our doctrine, and that some credobaptists have done a better job than some paedobaptists at integrating the family into the church, and teaching families to disciple their children in the faith. I have a number of good friends that are baptists, and even just looking at the followers of this blog it looks to be about a 50/50 split (I actually have much more in common with reformed baptists than with many 'paedobaptists', i.e. Roman Catholics, liberal protestant denominations like the PCUSA, etc...). But while there are other issues that are more important, I think it is good to bring this issue out every once and awhile, especially in the individualistic culture of today. As I said in my last post, I think covenantal thinking is vitally important for us today. While there is much more to covenantal thinking than baptism, it does play a part, and should not be ignored.

Covenantal Theology and Society

You might remember my post a while back on Rules and Relationships, or you might have seen my post on Centralization on my food website. Both of them were dealing with the idea of covenant. The two very interwoven aspects of covenant can be called rules and relationships, and objective and subjective. In the marriage covenant there is an objective vow, structure, and rings that connect the man and women and a married couple, but there is also the relationship and love between the them which is essential for them to be one. Without the structure and objective connection there is an undefined basis (i.e. no basis) for love, and it is not what we would call a marriage. But without the love and subjective relationship, the structure and objective reality is legalistic and artificial. My pastor, Kevin Swanson, has described our covenant with God with the example of a branch being grafted into a tree. There is both an objective connection by binding the the branch to the tree by the physical band, but there is also the actual interchange of nutrients, water, sap, which makes the branch a living part of the tree. Louis Berkhof explains this idea in his Manuel of Christian Doctrine, that in the Bible the covenant has both a legal and objective aspect, as well as a communion of life (i.e. faith, love) that the legal aspect is a means to. Using Old Testament terminology, there is an objective circumcision of the flesh, and a circumcision of the heart. In the New Testament there is the baptism by water, and the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Both are very important, and they work together.

We can see how we have drifted away from covenantal community and the disastrous consequences of doing so. In the civil sphere the state has grown more and more objective and legalistic, centralizing power away from the local and relational community. This has resulted in public schools, state-funded impersonal welfare, vast amounts of rules regulating every minute part of life, and many other tyrannies. In the ecclesiastical sphere the church has gone the other way, becoming more and more subjective and individualistic, focusing on saving your little soul and your emotional affection towards Jesus. The Bible is losing objective authority and often can mean whatever you want it to mean for you. The sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper are often regarded as mere memorials, which are nice things that should make you feel better (and, of course, should only be done after your personal emotional experience). The invisible church (the truly elect Christians, not necessarily those part of the institutional church) is really all that matters to the the average evangelical, and sometimes the institutional church is even seen as a negative thing that gets in the way of true spirituality. In the familial sphere, families have gone both ways. Often conservatives have had a tendency to be more objective and legalistic, while liberals have a tendency to be more subjective and carefree with regards to rules and discipline, but families can fall into either trap fairly easily.

Now I am not against rules or relationships. I want them both, and both of them will help form the other one when done properly in covenant. I love the truth and I love people (at least I aim to do both). I believe that covenantal thinking is vitally important to living and working properly in life. Without it, our relationships to people and to God will be messed up. That is a very serious matter.

An Introduction to Missouri Folk Music

For your entertainment/edification/cultural enrichment here is a short introduction into the native folk music of my home state. 

First, a bit of old time fiddling. This is played at Ozark speed (which tends to be faster that the northern parts of the state) and is commonly played for square dances or contra dances. This tune is called Walk Along John.

Dave Para and Cathy Barton are an amazing husband and wife team that have been playing Missouri folk music for over 30 years. They generally play music more typical of "Little Dixie," in central Missouri. 

To be more complete I would need a video of bluegrass from Missouri, but I don't have the time to find a video. My mom played in a bluegrass band when we lived in Missouri, and we went to quite a few bluegrass festivals growing up. It is especially common near Branson area.

And just when you thought you had Missouri figured out, here comes a curve ball. Did you know that Missouri has had a French speaking population in its Old Mines district? The language is nearly dead now, although in the late 80s there were still about 1,000 native French speakers. They've been here since the 1700s. Here is a neat article about the French culture in Missouri: http://www.archaeology.org/online/interviews/stroughmatt.html

This song was recorded in Sainte Genevieve, Missouri, July 2007.  It is called "La Guillanee", and is a Illinois-Indiana-Missouri French New Year Song.

Providence

"[G]ive heed, and you will at once perceive that ignorance of Providence is the greatest of all miseries, and the knowledge of it the highest happiness." 

~John Calvin 

(Institutes, Book 1, Chap. 17, Sect. 11)

Reflections on the Change of Years and Time

For all our days pass away under your wrath;

we bring our years to an end like a sigh.

The years of our life are seventy,

or even by reason of strength eighty;

yet their span is but toil and trouble;

they are soon gone, and we fly away.

Who considers the power of your anger,

and your wrath according to the fear of you?

So teach us to number our days

that we may get a heart of wisdom.

Return, O LORD! How long?

Have pity on your servants!

Satisfy us in the morning with your steadfast love,

that we may rejoice and be glad all our days.

Make us glad for as many days as you have afflicted us,

and for as many years as we have seen evil.

Let your work be shown to your servants,

and your glorious power to their children.

Let the favor of the Lord our God be upon us,

and establish the work of our hands upon us;

yes, establish the work of our hands!

(Psalm 90:9-17)

What a thing time is. We are fully in time. We cannot escape time. It will continue to go, and we cannot stop it. As much as novels fantasize about time travel, we can never go back and redo our actions. This moment passes and does not return. 2012 comes and 2011 will never be again. It will be on the history books, and what was done was done. Things may be forgotten, but the effect of those things will live on into the future, and we certainly cannot add things, as much as historians try. 

Psalm 90, as well as Ecclesiastes and other places in the Bible, brings out the finiteness of our earthly existence. We have perhaps seventy, maybe even eighty years; perhaps twenty. It is easy to forget that in the active life of today, where our culture wants to distract us from our helplessness, and our "science" want to make it seem like we are invincible and one step away from being immortal. But we must all die! I like to remind people that everyone who fought in the Civil War died. In fact, everyone who lived in 798 A.D. also died. Death is a powerful means to make us realize our finiteness and the seriousness of time. Time is ticking away at this moment, and you have decided to use this precious time to look at my blog, and you will always have spent this time looking at this blog. You cannot change that. 

For the last five weeks I have kept a careful schedule of my time, and it is amazing how much I have, how much I can do, and how much I don't do. Did I really spend that much time watching that movie? Did I really check the news that much? Was that worth it? It is humbling to realize where the time has gone, and where we have spent it. And the longer I live, the saying of "to whom much is given, much is required" comes to mind all the more. Did I invest my time in worthwhile things? Did I spend enough time with other people? Did I enjoy God with that time? Did I use what God had given me, or did I bury it hoping to save it for another time? (Did I just use that word again?) 

The issue comes down to whether the time was vain, or if it was fulfilling and meaningful. Moses, the writer of Psalm 90, is keenly aware of this fact, and calls for God to come in fellowship, to return, to not stay away, because without God, not only are our years short, but they are "but toil and trouble". Moses cries out that God would "Satisfy us in the morning with your steadfast love, that we may rejoice and be glad all our days." Oh! That our days may be full and satisfied! Then we may rejoice. We may write great musical compositions, epic poems, and beautiful books. We may make good and beautiful food, and we may feast, love, and work with a glad heart. We can do these things because they are worthwhile and purposeful when they are done to the glory of God and as ways to enjoy Him. Without God, the work of our hands is not established, and is vain and meaningless. "For to the one who pleases him God has given wisdom and knowledge and joy, but to the sinner he has given the business of gathering and collecting, only to give to one who pleases God. This also is vanity and a striving after wind." (Eccl. 2:26)

So as we enter the new year may we remember several things. First, time passes and soon 2012 will also be finished, never to be again. Second, only God is God. We are finite, must die, and have a limited amount of time to spend. Third, we will be accountable for every moment of our life, "For God will bring every deed into judgment, with every secret thing, whether good or evil." (Eccl. 12:14) Fourth, while life is vain without God, and while we should soberly number our days to "get a heart of wisdom", when God returns and gives us His steadfast love we are satisfied and fulfilled. The work of the Lord will be shown, and the work of our hands will established. We can celebrate and find meaning in our actions. We can cultivate beauty, love, joy, and excellence. We can "rejoice and be glad all our days." Let us fill our short time on earth with that which is meaningful, that which is found in our relationship with God.

"Go thy way, eat thy bread with joy, and drink thy wine with a merry heart;
for God now accepteth thy works."
(Eccl. 9:7)

The Fire of Christmas

Behold, see the fire crackle and snap 

Its hot, glowing fingers burst forth and wrap 

Around the wood and its dark blackened face 

The flames dance, vanish, and twist in their place

Around this bright wonder the people sit 

Hardly aware that they all stare at it 

Laughing and talking of both life and dream 

As shoes dry and steam in the fire's gleam 

Above this wonder the stars shine around 

Below and past them the snow's on the ground 

The distant fiddle, the joy in the air 

To these blessed folks, their vigor doth share 

Why is there peace when the dark is unknown? 

Why is there joy when the cold cuts the bone? 

Why do these people all love, laugh, and play, 

While the wet and wind prevail all the day? 

This wonder is caused by blood that Christ shed 

While we were dark, cold, bitter, and dead 

The Winter fled from the flame of His light 

And as King leads us to vict'ry and might

------

P. S. I wrote this poem the evening of the 10th. Can anyone guess at what real-life location I was picturing myself while I was writing it?

The Christmas Tree, An Idol?

It is Christmas time, and that apparently means it is time for another round of the Christmas debate. While not all of you might be aware, there is a debate between those who think that Christmas is a pagan holiday and those who think that Christmas is a Christian holiday. I do not have time to make a "in defense of Christmas" post, but this year I want to make a few notes on the tradition of the Christmas Tree.

That the pagans did worship trees is not disputed. But if we say that because pagans worship evergreen trees, we cannot have Christmas trees, we run into some problems. Are we saying that because a pagan might have a picture of a natural scene and worship it, we cannot have a picture of a natural scene and marvel at God's creation? Are we saying that because many modern day materialists might worship houses and cars, that we should live in a cave and ride a bike? Many pagans do worship things like trees, rocks, flowers, etc… But doesn't stop from God from using His creation, including evergreen trees, in very many illustrations, symbols, and examples.

"The trees of the LORD are watered abundantly, 

 the cedars of Lebanon that he planted." (Psalm 104:16)

"I will be like the dew to Israel; 

he shall blossom like the lily; 

he shall take root like the trees of Lebanon; 

his shoots shall spread out; 

his beauty shall be like the olive, 

and his fragrance like Lebanon. 

They shall return and dwell beneath my shadow; 

they shall flourish like the grain; 

they shall blossom like the vine; 

their fame shall be like the wine of Lebanon.

"O Ephraim, what have I to do with idols? 

It is I who answer and look after you. 

I am like an evergreen cypress; 

from me comes your fruit." 

(Hosea 14:5-8) 

"And why are you anxious about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin, yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is alive and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith?" (Matthew 6:28-30) 

Also look up Job 38-41. We even see almond blossoms used as decoration in the Temple (Exod. 25:31-35). I am not saying that evergreen trees cannot be used as an idol, and I am not saying that there are not times when having a Christmas Tree could be a stumbling block. If you are living in a culture (like ancient Germany) that worships evergreen trees and views them as sacred, then cutting down a few on your land and tuning them into firewood might be better. This goes back to Paul's discussion on food offered to idols in 1 Corinthians 8. Symbols do mean things, and you do not want to damage the conscience of the weaker brother. We have a right to eat food offered to idols, because idols are nothing, "But take care that this right of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak" (1 Corinthians 8:9). So if I was evangelizing a culture that worshipped evergreen trees, I would probably not have a Christmas Tree, "lest I make my brother stumble". But I would teach the true way to view an evergreen tree, and I would hope that 1300 years later that Christians would be able to used God's creation for His glory.

"I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing." (John 15:5)

"Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life and that they may enter the city by the gates." (Revelation 22:14)

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

[Note from 2023:]

I wrote this post twelve years ago, and I thought I would update it with a couple quotes on the origin of the Christmas tree, including a reference to Martin Bucer, a Reformed pastor you can learn more about from this blog post and this two-part lesson series. 

The Christmas tree as we know it seemed to emerge in Lutheran lands in Germany in the sixteenth century. Although no specific city or town has been identified as the first to have a Christmas tree, records for the Cathedral of Strassburg indicate that a Christmas tree was set up in that church in 1539 during Martin Bucer's superintendency. (Frank C. Senn, Introduction to Christian Liturgy, 2012)

The modern Christmas tree, though, originated in western Germany. The main prop of a popular medieval play about Adam and Eve was a 'paradise tree,' a fir tree hung with apples, that represented the Garden of Eden. The Germans set up a paradise tree in their homes on December 24, the religious feast day of Adam and Eve. They hung wafers on it (symbolizing the eucharistic host, the Christian sign of redemption); in a later tradition the wafers were replaced by cookies of various shapes. Candles, symbolic of Christ as the light of the world, were often added. In the same room was the 'Christmas pyramid,' a triangular construction of wood that had shelves to hold Christmas figurines and was decorated with evergreens, candles, and a star. By the 16th century the Christmas pyramid and the paradise tree had merged, becoming the Christmas tree. (Encyclopedia Britannica, "Christmas Trees")

There is something obviously natural about decorating with evergreen branches and trees in the winter time when so much else is dead or drab. In addition to this, we can use it to remember the birth of Jesus, who was born that he might bring life to a world under bondage to corruption. He came to restore fallen man to that life once symbolized by the tree of life, a symbol that appears again at the end of the Bible in Revelation. Jesus is himself the source of eternal life to all who partake of him.

The Pilgrims in 1621, Part 5: Thanksgiving

And finally we get to the great event of 1621, “the First Thanksgiving”. Now I should mention that Thanksgiving was not this time of year. It was somewhere between September 18th and November 10th as those are the dates of the events described by Bradford and Winslow before and after Thanksgiving. Thanksgiving was most likely in October, which makes sense as it was as the harvest was all gotten in. If you are in Massachusetts in late November it isn’t going to seem like harvest season. I bring this up because it is important to remember what this celebration was for. This was a harvest festival. In the words of Edward Winslow, “our governor sent four men on fowling, that so we might after...a special manner rejoice together after we had gathered the fruit of our labors”.

The Pilgrims were a hard-working people, but that did not mean that they didn’t rejoice. In the 1800s, many of the descendants of the Pilgrims and Puritans forgot God, but continued the emphasis on work and became the industrialists that did produce a lot, but also tore apart the relational community that the Pilgrims represented so well. The Pilgrims were hard workers, but were not workaholic. Because of their hard work, their rejoicing meant all the more. The less effort we put into our work, the less enjoyment we will get from our celebrating, and the less special it will be. Because the Pilgrims worked hard, they played hard. They feasted for a week, entertaining their 90 Indian guests for three of those days! They feasted like Christians. The Bible gives guidelines for this kind of rejoicing in several places. In Deuteronomy 14:22-29 it gives directions to the Israelites to give a entire tithe of their produce to a feast of celebration, and to buy with it “whatever you desire—oxen or sheep or wine or strong drink, whatever your appetite craves. And you shall eat there before the LORD your God and rejoice, you and your household”. In Deuteronomy 16:13-15 it commands the Israelites to “keep the Feast of Booths seven days, when you have gathered in the produce from your threshing floor and your winepress. You shall rejoice in your feast, you and your son and your daughter, your male servant and your female servant, the Levite, the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow who are within your towns. For seven days you shall keep the feast to the LORD your God at the place that the LORD will choose, because the LORD your God will bless you in all your produce and in all the work of your hands, so that you will be altogether joyful.” The Pilgrims reflect this much in their celebration, in the feasting for seven days, in inviting the sojourner (i.e. the Indians), in doing it in praise to God’s goodness, and in being altogether joyful.

We are told that the Pilgrims participated in a couple activities to celebrate, and I can say those that are mentioned are all things that I would enjoy. The first thing was going hunting. The main thing that is mentioned is hunting for waterfowl like ducks and geese, although Bradford adds that they hunted other things as well, like turkeys and deer. The Indians also brought five deer to the celebration that they had hunted. Another activity mentioned is the shooting of guns, most likely in competitions of marksmanship. And besides hunting and shooting, Winslow says that there were other recreations as well, which we can but speculate on. Perhaps they had races, games, singing, and dancing. And then of course there was the feasting. In the several days that they feasted they ate the wild game they had shot like the ducks, geese, deer, and turkeys; the fish, clams and eels they got from the sea; many vegetables such as squash, beans, onions, Indian corn; and native fruits such as cranberries and grapes. As Winslow wrote to those back in England, “And although it be not always so plentiful as it was at this time with us, yet by the goodness of God, we are so far from want that we often wish you partakers of our plenty.”

And so we find the Pilgrims near the close of 1621, and although there would be many other trials, the Pilgrims had laid down a foundation of a godly society that would be built upon for many years afterwards that would later help form the United States of America. They laid a foundation of diligent work, of honorable foreign relations, of joyful thankfulness, and over all, a foundation of Christianity that worked itself out in its actions. Because of their Biblical policies and God’s sovereign Providence they enjoyed a peace with those around them. As Winslow said, “We have found the Indians very faithful in their covenant of peace with us...yea, it has pleased God so to possess the Indians with a fear of us, and love unto us...so that there is now great peace amongst the Indians themselves, which was not formerly, neither would have been but for us; and we for our parts walk as peaceably and safely in the wood as in the highways in England.” Because of sin we cannot have a utopia here on earth, and the Pilgrims fell into sin time and again. But God was merciful and blessed the Pilgrims and the rest of America for their early faithfulness. Since then we have taken the blessing while forgetting the reason for it. We have become a people that sees work as merely a necessary means for feeding our materialistic cravings. We have become a welfare and warfare state. We have become a individualized and commercialized society devoid of relationships, hospitality, and community. May we learn from their efforts, may we return to God and lead our society back to Him. May we remember that “Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord” (Ps. 33:12).

Happy Thanksgiving!

The Pilgrims in 1621, Part 4: Justice and Warfare

The first of these two events happened in August, right before the Massachusets expedition. There had been one of the Indian tribes, by the name of the Narigansets that had not been affected by the sickness that had affected many of the other tribes around them. They saw that this was their chance to increase their land and power. But then the English came around, making friends with these weak tribes. As Bradford says of the ambitious Narigansets, “who, (since the death of so many of the Indians,) thought to domineer and lord it over the rest, and conceived the English would be a bar in their way, and saw that Massasoit took shelter already under their wings.” Thus the Narigansets saw that they had to make their move. They proceeded to drive King Massasoit out of his home, and the Pilgrims lost track of where he was. At the same time a lower chieftain under Massasoit, named Corbitant, seemed to become allied with the Narigansets and started to speak against Massasoit and the Pilgrims, and aiming to draw Massasoit’s people away from him. Corbitant started to have a following, which grew as Massasoit disappeared and the Narigansets grew stronger. The Pilgrims and Massasoit’s loyal followers began to get concerned. So Squanto and an other Indian named Hobomak, who was said to be a very strong and loyal man, went out to seek their lost king, but had to go undercover, pretending some other reason to go out. Nevertheless, they were betrayed, and one morning as they were staying in a village, they were surrounded by Corbitant and his followers. Hobomak, being a strong man, slipped away, but the last he saw was that Squanto was surrounded by many hostile Indians, being threatened by Corbitant with a knife. Hobomak ran and told the Pilgrims, but despaired for Squanto’s life.

The Pilgrims quickly decided on a plan of action. “Whereupon it was resolved to send the Captain and 14 men well armed, and to go and fall upon them in the night; and if they found that Squanto was killed, to cut of Corbitant’s head, but not to hurt any but those that had a hand in it.” (Of Plymouth Plantation) Now, when most people picture the Pilgrims, they don’t see them as cutting people’s heads off. Some, not all, but some portrayals (especially some of the Victorian portrayals) of the Pilgrims can get at times effeminate or at least somewhat soft and fluffy. The Pilgrims followed God’s word and although they only used it when necessary, they were not afraid of battle and criminal justice. The Pilgrims wanted justice, and were definite with the judgments, but careful to administer it to who it was due, by proper civil authority. As Proverbs 21:15 says, “When justice is done, it is a joy to the righteous but terror to evildoers.”

So the Pilgrims went off to the Indian village where the commotion had been, and although they got a little lost on the way, they arrived by the pre-dawn darkness of the next day. They surrounded the village and demanded for Corbitant. There was a bit of confusion and three Indians darted out in fear and were wounded by the Pilgrims (they were later nursed to health by the Pilgrims in Plymouth). Then Squanto walked out to them, safe and sound, and told them that Corbitant had fled. The Indians in the village feared the English, and the boys, seeing the gentle way the Pilgrims treated the women, cried out “I am a women”. After making known their loyalty to Massasoit and their determination to see justice done to Corbitant, the Pilgrims went back to Plymouth. This swift and definite action by the English caused Corbitant’s followers to be discouraged and to desert Corbitant, and when Massasoit showed up he helped reconcile Corbitant to the English (which the English graciously did). It also caused the Indian tribes to respect the English and seek peace with them; even islands far to the south sent messengers to make peace with them.

Things seemed peaceful again, but the Narigansets were not defeated yet. They made their next move in late November. This was actually after the “First Thanksgiving”, but for the sake of this talk I will continue the Nariganset story, and come back to Thanksgiving. The danger of the Narigansets and the strength of the Pilgrims had strengthened the relationship between the Pilgrims and their allies and the Narigansets knew that had to act soon. (That the Pilgrims were regarded as formidable is remarkable when you consider that they consisted at this point of only about 50-60 men, women, and children) The Narigansets finally sent a messenger to the Pilgrims with a bundle of arrows tied with a snakeskin as a threat and challenge of warfare if the Pilgrims did not leave. The English boldly replied with filling the snakeskin with bullets and gunpowder with message that “if they had rather have war then peace, they might begin when they would; they had done them no wrong, neither did they fear them, or should they find them unprovided.” This caused the Narigansets to fear, and they sent the snakeskin from village to village, none wanting to have it, it eventually came back to the Pilgrims. The Pilgrims built a wall around Plymouth and started to train for combat, but the Narigansets did not carry through with their threat. Thus, due to both respecting the tribes around them and seeking peace, and being fully prepared for war and defense when needed, they won peace and respect from the peoples around them. I might add that America is almost in the opposite position, where we don’t much respect the sovereignty of other nations and don’t seek much peace, while we seem to be pretty indefinite in waging our wars. And so it should not be a surprise that we get little respect from the peoples around us.

To be continued...

The Pilgrims in 1621, Part 3: Trade

Continuing in 1621 there are two events that show the Pilgrims’ policies when it came to trading and exploration. Shortly after the expedition to Massasoit came back, a boy named John Billington lost himself in the woods. John Billington had already been a trouble maker, as he and his brother had almost blown up the Mayflower on the trip over. This time he simply lost his way. The English sent word to Massasoit to find out where he was, and learned that he had survived on wild berries for five days until some Indians found him, and he had been taken to a village called Nawsett over 20 miles away. This was a precarious position as some earlier English explorers had kidnapped some of these Indians and it was these Indians that had shot arrows at the Pilgrims during the winter. It was also found out that it was these Indians that the Pilgrims had taken corn from. So the Pilgrims sent an expedition down to Nawsett to try to retrieve the boy and to appease the natives. When they got there, they were greatly relived to find a relatively warm reception. There was some that were angry at the Englishmen, but the Pilgrims apologized for the wicked deeds of their countrymen and promised good will between them. They gave gifts and offered to pay for the corn they had taken. The Indians then peace with the English, promises to come and trade with them, and gave them the boy. This was a providential blessing for the Pilgrims and could have been much worse. It brings to mind Proverbs 16:7, “When a man's ways please the LORD, he makes even his enemies to be at peace with him.” In fact, this verse is applicable to many of the Pilgrims’ encounters.

The second event that shows the Pilgrims’ policy of trade and exploration happened in September. The Pilgrims, never ones to be lazy, determined to send out another expedition, this time to the north, to the Massachusets tribe, near what is now Boston. Again they wanted to explore the area around them, to make peace with this tribe (there had been rumors that this tribe had threatened them), and to trade with them. As they traveled they remarked at the beauty and potential of the land, but remembered as Bradford put it, “it seems the Lord, who assigns to all men the bounds of their habitations, had appointed it for an other use.” Instead of the being land grabbers like many later Americans, particularly in the west were known as, they both admired the land, and respected the Indians’ claim to it. When they first arrived to where the Massachusets lived, they found that they had fled in fear. They finally found some of the women and children huddled in some huts. Squanto showed his Indian view of ethics when he suggested that the Pilgrims steal anything they needed from the women and children, because the Massachusets were a bad people and had threatened the Pilgrims behind their back. The Pilgrims answered that even if the Massachusets were as bad as Squanto said the Pilgrims would not wrong them, for they little weighed their words, but if they once attempted any aggression against them, they would do much more than merely take some trinkets. The Pilgrims then traded with the Massachusets, and slowly won their confidence, and invited them to come and trade at Plymouth. The Pilgrims were not preemptive in there actions, merely attacking because of who they were or what they could have said, but sought peace as far as possible, overlooking offenses, and reserved war for when it was really needed in defense. And when they meant war, they did not want to mess around with minor things, but when they fought it was a serious and definite thing. We can see this seriousness in two more events in 1621 that showed the Pilgrims’ way of justice and warfare.

To be continued...