Thanksgiving Day history lesson - excerpted from "The Light & The Glory" by Peter Marshall & David Manuel:

The men were gathered in the common house to conclude their conference on military instruction when the cry went up, "Indian coming!"

Indian coming? Surely he meant Indians coming. Disgusted, Captain Standish shook his head as he went to look out the window - to see a tall, well-built Indian, wearing nothing but a leather loincloth, striding up their main street. He was headed straight for the common house, and the men inside hurried to the door, before he walked right in on them. He stopped and stood motionless looking at them, as though sculpted in marble.

"Welcome!" he suddenly boomed, in a deep, resonant voice. The Pilgrims were too startled to speak. At length they replied with as much gravity as they could muster: "Welcome."

Their visitor fixed them with a piercing stare. "Have you got any beer?" he asked them in flawless English. If they were surprised before, they were astounded now.

"Beer?" one of them managed.

The Indian nodded.

The Pilgrims looked at one another, then turned back to him. "Our beer is gone. Would you like ... some brandy?"

Again the Indian nodded.

They brought him some brandy, and a biscuit with butter and cheese, and then some pudding and a piece of roast duck. To their continuing amazement he ate with evident relish everything set before him. Where had he developed such an appetite for English food? For that matter, who was he, and what was he doing here?

1/6 ... Finally the time for answering questions came. His name was Samoset. He was a sagamore (or chief) of the Algonquins... He had been visiting in these parts for the past eight months, having begged a ride down the coast with Captain Thomas Dermer, an English sea captain known to the Pilgrims by reputation... Apparently Samoset's sole motivation was a love of travel, and he had learned English from various fishing captains who had put into the Maine shore over the years.

Now they asked the crucial questions: What could he tell them of the Indians hereabouts? And the story he told gave every one of them cause to thank God in their hearts. This area had always been the territory of the Patuxets - a large, hostile tribe who had barbarously murdered every white man who had landed on their shores. But four years prior to the Pilgrims' arrival, a mysterious plague had broken out among them, killing every man, woman and child. So complete was the devastation that the neighboring tribes had shunned the area ever since, convinced that some great supernatural spirit had destroyed the Patuxets. Hence the cleared land on which they has settled literally belonged to no one!

2/6

Today is Columbus Day, and Christopher Columbus is certainly a man worthy of remembrance and celebration.

Of course, in this "politically correct" era, it is commonplace to attack Columbus. We have seen attempts to turn this day into “Indigenous Peoples Day” (why would we celebrate people who practiced constant tribal warfare, human trafficking/slavery, and human sacrifice?). We have seen Columbus statues torn down in recent years. Because Columbus represents Western civilization, traditional masculinity/"the patriarchy," and the Christian faith, he is an easy target for today's progressive degenerates to attack.

While Columbus was not a perfect man (obviously), he was a great man and may certainly be considered a Christian hero, as his courageous exploration was very much tied to seeking to spread the gospel to new lands and peoples.

1/5 Edwin Friedman described the greatness of Columbus as a leader this way:

"Columbus is the very embodiment of[leadership]. Not only was he one of the most imaginative men of all time, but he was also one of the most determined, as well as the great example of the principle that vision is not enough. Almost two millennia previously the Greeks also knew the world was round, but Columbus was the first to say, 'Follow me westward as a way to go east.' To be determined, decisive, visionary, and still keep your wits about you may be what it takes to reorient any marriage, family, organization, society, or civilization.”

2/5

A 🧵 on ordo amoris, natural affection, and America’s immigration problem:

A lot of the talk today about ordo amoris and natural affections centers around preference - the freedom we have to prefer “our own kind” and whatnot.

I think this is backwards. Preferences do matter and do have their place. But obligations are more fundamental than preferences. When it comes to the discussion of ordo amoris, we should not start by asking about our preferences but start by asking about our duties. To whom do I have the greater obligation?

1/9 In many cases, duties and preferences align quite easily. A mother quite naturally “prefers” her newborn baby to any other newborn baby. But more fundamentally, she has obligations to her newborn that she does not have any other baby in the world because of the bond that exists between her and her own child. Likewise, I prefer my children to your children, but what really matters is that I have an obligation to provide for my children that I do not have for your children. If I don’t provide for my own children, I am worse than unbeliever. But I have no obligation to provide for your children at all in ordinary circumstances - that’s your job and your responsibility. Further, I have a duty to defend my nation if it is under invasion, but I do not have a duty to defend a nation on the other side of the world if it gets invaded. Again: I have an obligation to care for my brothers and sisters in my local congregation that I do not have for Christians in some far away country. And so on. My obligations are not evenly distributed across humanity, or across the church; rather, my obligations to particular humans are conditioned by the various ways in which we are related to one another. I ought to love anyone made in God’s image, yes, but my obligations to particular image bearers intensifies based on the relational proximity and connectedness we have to one another. I have obligations to some people that I do not have to other people, and I should structure my life - my loves, my service, my sacrifices - accordingly.

2/9

A 🧵 on nations and Christian nationalism:

The gospel creates unity amongst all believers; the gospel unites all who are in Christ into one people, one family, one nation. Jesus prays for the unity of his people to be manifested in the world (John 17), and that oneness is always a spiritual reality, even if our sin sometimes obscures it. There is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church, as the creed says. This oneness means all believers are part of the same body; catholicity means this one church is universal, embracing all believers in all times and places. The gospel includes the reconciliation of different nations and people groups in Christ (Eph. 2:11ff), with the result that nations can beat their swords into plowshares (Isa. 2).

1/7 We must also affirm that the gospel does not annihilate creational or providential structures like distinct families and nations, but rather sanctifies them. The gospel does not obliterate the distinction between my household and the other households that make up the membership of my local church. The gospel links us together in Christ but does not negate the integrity of each natural family. My household continues to be a real household, even as my household is incorporated into the larger household of God.

2/7

The Scriptures affirm the goodness of natural affections, eg, love for my own family and nation.

The Scriptures also teach that natural affections must sometimes be sacrificed for the sake of something greater, namely, following Jesus and being loyal to his church (eg, Matt. 10:36-39 ; Mark 3:31-35; Luke 14:26; etc.). Natural affections are good, but if not kept in proper order, can become an idolatrous rival to Christ.

1/10 One problem with saying, “I should prefer my people to other groups,” is that each one of us belongs to *several* people groups. My people groups include:
- my nuclear family
- my extended family
- my nation/ethnicity
- my region (the South) and state (Alabama)
- my city, town, neighborhood, and street
- my cultural heritage, Western civilization
- my local church
- my denomination
- my theological tradition
- the church catholic
- those who share my skin color
- those who went to the same schools
- those who cheer for the same sports teams
- those who like the same brands
- etc.

The real question is how to organize my loves and loyalties to each of these groups to which I belong. Some of these “in groups” make a strong claim on my love and loyalty than others. There are contexts in which Scripture not only permits, but requires, an “in group” preference.

2/10

Some notes on Psalm 110, Christ’s priestly ministry, and why pastors must be men:

By time we reach the end of psalm Psalm 110, the dead bodies are piling up. In verse 1, Christ’s enemies are made into a footstool for his feet. In verse 2, he rules in the midst of his enemies — and has a scepter to smite them. In verse 5, he shatters kings in the day of his wrath. In verse 6, he executes nations and fills them with corpses.
1/15 And yet right in the middle of this “messiah on the warpath” imagery, we have a reference to Christ being an eternal priest after the order of Melchizedek. It is perhaps easier for us to see how the battle imagery of the psalm fits with Jesus’ kingship. After all, we expect kings — especially Davidic kings — to be battlefield heroes. Jesus does not disappoint in that way. He strikes and smashes his enemies from the beginning to the end of this psalm. The psalm paints the portrait of an utterly victorious king.
2/15