Year of the Tiger (again)

Today is New Year’s Eve in the Western world, but I am posting this after the new year has already begun in East Asia. So, in true Japanese fashion I am wishing you each one a Happy New Year! 明けまして、おめでとう御座います。(If you don’t have Japanese fonts loaded on your computer, you may not be able to see the Japanese words in the previous sentence.)

The Year of the Tiger

According to the zodiac of East Asia, today is the beginning of the Year of the Tiger. This year the “Chinese New Year” begins on February 1, but for a long time now, Japan has celebrated January 1 as New Year’s Day, while retaining many of the ancient traditions.

This is “my” year, for I was born in the Year of the Tiger. In East Asia there is a sign for each of twelve years, not twelve signs in one year as in the West, and each repeat in a twelve-year cycle.

It is fairly easy to guess what year a person was born in if you know their sign, so in Japan it was not unusual to ask for a person’s zodiac sign rather than asking how old they were. So, since this is the year of my zodiac sign, you can probably guess I will turn 84—but if you guessed 72, that’s all right!

Is Time Circular or Linear?

While not hesitating to celebrate the new year, whether in the West or in the East, I do have a bit of a problem with emphasizing a circular way of thinking rather than a linear one.

Years ago, a Japanese friend pointed out that from Christianity’s linear viewpoint there is no qualitative difference between January 1 and any other day of the year. The Christian (as well as the Jewish and Muslim) worldview is based on history rather than nature.

Thus, it is more significant that today is the beginning of the year 2022 than it is January 1. We are a part of history moving from the past to the future more than in a cycle of nature as the earth revolves around the sun.

The latter view is sometimes linked to “the myth of eternal return” (Eliade), which I see as being at odds with the Judeo-Christian worldview. For that reason, I have some problem with the “church year” emphasis, which to some extent is based on the concept of circularity rather than linearity.

To remember the momentous events in the life of Christ each year is good, of course. But do we really need to wait all during Advent to celebrate the coming of Christ if we know he was born over 2,000 years ago?

And do we need to be sorrowful all through Lent if we know that Jesus has already been resurrected and we are living in the joy of new life?

Forward Like a Tiger

According to one website, “People who were born in a Tiger year share personality traits with tigers. They are most active and full of valor and vigor. They usually act decisively but cautiously. In the face of setbacks, resistance, or failure, they make prompt decisions.”

Further, “Male tigers are energetic and ambitious. They are also very aggressive and dominating. They like to challenge themselves . . . to achieve all the goals they set. They keep their promises and do what they have promised.”

Well, I can’t deny that I recognize myself in those descriptions—although as I approach my 84^th birthday this year, I certainly don’t have the vigor or energy that I had most of my life.

Whether you were born in the Year of the Tiger or not, I pray that as we all move forward through the New Year like a tiger and be blessed with health and happiness.

And may we find strength for the journey and joy in the struggle for peace and justice in each of the days in 2022.

_____

** My Jan. 1, 2010, post was titled “Year of the Tiger,” so that is why “(again)” is in the title of this article. This post is similar to (but not the same) as that article posted 12 years ago. And in spite of some of the negative comments received then, I am repeating the questioned ideas.

The Christmas Rebellion (aka Baptist War) of 1831

“The Battle for Christmas” was the title of my Dec. 20 blog post. This article is about the battle that began on Christmas 1831 in the British Crown Colony of Jamaica. It is known as the Christmas Rebellion or as the Baptist War. 

Slavery in Jamaica

My initial impetus for writing this blog post came a year ago when I read Baylor University Professor Philip Jenkins’s article “Jamaica’s Baptist War” in the Dec. 16, 2020, issue of Christian Century.

According to Jenkins, from the 1520s through the 1870s, some 400,000 slaves were imported into what became and then was the United States. During that same period, Jamaica brought in almost a million enslaved Africans.

Slavery in Jamaica was largely due to Englishmen seeking to make a fortune from growing sugar cane in that island colony. England gained control of Jamaica in 1655, and soon some enterprising men were lured into creating sugar plantations there—and slaves were needed to work in the cane fields.

In 1662, Englishman Peter Beckford emigrated to the island, taking with him two or three enslaved Africans. By the time of his death in 1710, Beckford’s wealth included 20 Jamaican estates, 1,500 slaves, and a huge amount of bank stock.

“The Beckfords, Slavery In Jamaica” is an hour-long documentary produced by BBC and available to see here on YouTube. It graphically depicts the opulence of the Beckford family and the cruel treatment of the slaves who were forced to toil on their sugar plantations.

Baptist Slaves in Jamaica

The first Black missionary to Jamaica was George Lisle (sometimes spelled Liele), a Georgia slave who was freed by his “owner,” Henry Sharp, in 1778. While still a slave, he was the first African American to be ordained, and in 1783 he became the first Baptist to go to another land as a missionary.

By 1814, there were around 8,000 Jamaican slaves who had become Baptist Christians. Missionary Lisle, who died in Jamaica in 1828, didn’t openly challenge the system of slavery, but he prepared the way for those who did.

Samuel Sharpe was born into slavery in 1801. While he was still a young man, his fellow Baptists nicknamed him “Daddy” because he was literate, intelligent, and exhibited leadership qualities.

According to this 2020 article in The Gazette, UK’s “official public record” since 1665,

Sharpe led a plan for a peaceful general strike to start on Christmas Day in 1831, with the slaves demanding more freedom and a working wage and refusing to work unless their demands were met by the state owners and managers.

However, the peaceful strike morphed into the largest slave rebellion in the West Indies with as many as 60,000 of Jamaica’s 300,000 slaves arming themselves and seizing property across the island. But in just a few days the British forces and the Jamaican government quelled the rebellion.

Fourteen planters and 2-300 slaves were killed during the battles, and later over 300 more were executed. Just before Sharpe was hanged in May 1832, he declared, 

That slave rebellion, though, pushed Great Britain to pass the Slavery Abolition Act in 1833. Full emancipation throughout all Britain’s colonies was implemented in 1838. Quite an accomplishment for the Baptist (and other) slaves in Jamaica!

Baptist Deacons in Jamaica

Sam Sharpe, who led that Christmas Rebellion of 1831 was a Baptist deacon (and lay preacher)—and because so many of those who participated in the battles were Baptists, it is often called the Baptist War.

Another Baptist deacon, Paul Bogle, led a significant antipoverty uprising in 1865. According to Wikipedia, Bogle (b. 1822–24) “was a Jamaican Baptist deacon and activist” who led a march “for justice and fair treatment for all the people in Jamaica.” He was hanged by the government in Oct. 1865.

In 1968, though, the Jamaican government established The Order of National Hero, and seven Jamaicans have been inducted into that Order. Two of those seven are Deacon Sharpe and Deacon Bogle.

Also, Deacon Sharpe’s image is on the Jamaican $50 bill even now. 

Thank God for Sam Sharpe and Paul Bogle, Baptist deacons who led in the struggle for freedom and justice!

The Battle for Christmas

In recent years there has been considerable talk about the war on Christmas. But conflict at Christmastime is nothing new. “The Battle for Christmas” was the title of my Christmas sermon for Dec. 21, 1997. The title was taken from historian Stephen Nissenbaum’s 1997 book by that name. 

The First Battle of Christmas

My 12/21/97 sermon, which I just happened to run across a printed copy of recently, was based on Matthew 2:1~18, the Bible passage that ends with the terrible “massacre of the innocents.” Since the first part of my blog post a year ago was about that tragic event, I’ll not say more about that now.

The Puritans’ Battle against Christmas

Much of the book by Nissenbaum (b. 1941) is about the history of how Christmas was celebrated in what became the United States. He explains that among the Puritans for a long time there was considerable opposition to the celebrating of Christmas.

In fact, in 1659 the Massachusetts General Court declared the celebration of Christmas to be a criminal offense. It was not until the middle of the nineteenth century that Christmas became a legal holiday in New England—or in most of the other states.

Early winter was most likely not the time of Jesus’ birth, so that was one reason Christmas was opposed. It was not until the fourth century that the Church decided to observe Christmas on December 25—and that date was chosen because of the long-standing celebration of the winter solstice.

So, as Nissenbaum says, the Puritans were correct when they pointed out that to a large degree “Christmas was nothing but a pagan festival covered with a Christian veneer” (p. 4).

But the Puritans had another reason for suppressing Christmas: it

involved behavior that most of us would find offensive and even shocking today—rowdy public displays of excessive eating and drinking, the mockery of established authority, aggressive begging (often involving the threat of doing harm), and even the invasion of wealthy homes (p. 5).

Nissenbaum also states, “There were always people for whom Christmas was a time of pious devotion rather than carnival but such people were always in the minority. It may not be going too far to say that Christmas has always been an extremely difficult holiday to Christianize” (p. 8).

The Contemporary Battle for Christmas

In the 2010s, “the war on Christmas” became a widely-used phrase to criticize those who wanted to recognize the plurality of the people who live in the U.S.

Acknowledging that a sizeable portion of the populace were not Christians, those who wished to be “politically correct” encouraged saying “Happy Holidays” or “Season’s Greetings” rather than “Merry Christmas.”

Many conservative evangelical Christians were incensed and verbally attacked the “liberals” for being atheists, or Communists, or whatever. Thankfully, that “war” seems to have largely, but not completely, subsided.

I was surprised to see the initial results of a 12/15 Washington Times poll on “How concerned are you about a ‘War on Christmas?’” By this morning (12/20) 72% had responded, “Very, it’s a genuine problem.”

(The Washington Times is the conservative newspaper founded by Sun Myung Moon in 1982. It is mostly read by people who think that D.C.’s major newspaper should be called “The Washington Compost,” as, for example, rightwing talk radio host Mark Levin has regularly referred to it.)

But the contemporary battle for Christmas is a real one, and it has been active during my whole lifetime. After all these years, I remember the sermon I heard at the First Baptist Church in Bolivar, Missouri, when I was a freshman in college.

Referring to that first battle of Christmas as recorded in Matthew 2, Pastor Clayton Baker talked about the three “Herods” that are still trying to kill the Christ of Christmas. He called them the “Herod of Hurried Hours,” the “Herod of Hollow Hallelujahs,” and the “Herod of Hurtful Hypocrisies.”

If you reflect on those three points of Rev. Baker’s sermon, you can grasp some of the problem, that is, keeping Jesus Christ as the focal point of Christmas.

The following meme expresses well a large part of what winning the battle for Christmas really means. 

Determinedly Defending Democracy

You probably have heard/read about last week’s “Summit for Democracy,” convened by President Biden via Zoom on Dec. 9-10. In spite of criticism from totalitarian governments (especially from China) and some domestic opponents, the President sought determinedly to defend democracy.

(Here is the link to the President’s closing remarks on Dec. 10.)

The Decline of Democracy

Freedom House is a non-profit, non-governmental organization in Washington, D.C., that conducts research and advocacy on democracy, political freedom, and human rights. Here is part of their report for 2021: 

Accordingly, President Biden warned world leaders at the Summit for Democracy on Dec. 9 of a “backward slide” in democracy around the globe and urged them to champion the form of government that needs concerted work to be sustained through an “inflection point in history.” (See here.)

The editors of the Dec. 15 issue of The Christian Century wrote of “Democracy’s death spiral” in the U.S., declaring that right now democracy “is under open attack.” (You can read that powerful editorial on p. 7 here).

And even Pope Francis has recently lamented that democracy has deteriorated dangerously as discontented people are lured by the “siren songs” of populist politicians who promise easy but unrealistic solutions. (The Pope expressed that sentiment on Dec. 4 as reported by Reuters.)

The Threat to Democracy

The biggest domestic threat to U.S. democracy in everyone’s lifetime was the attempted coup by Donald Trump and his fanatical supporters on January 6 of this year. But according to Barton Gellman, January 6 was practice for what is coming. 

Gellman (b. 1960) was on the staff of The Washington Post for 21 years, but now is a staff writer at The Atlantic. His cover story for the Jan./Feb. 2022 issue of that venerable magazine (founded in 1857) is “Trump’s Next Coup Has Already Begun.”

It is becoming increasingly clear from the indefatigable work of the January 6 Committee that the events on that volatile day at the Capitol were not due to outside rabble-rousers. It clearly was an inside job, that is, plotted from inside the White House.

An opinion piece in the Dec. 14 issue of The Washington Post is titled “Trump’s PowerPoint coup plotters were crackpots. We may not be so lucky next time.”

In that article, columnist Dana Milbank quips that then-White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, now being held in contempt of Congress (for his refusal to testify), “would more properly be held in contempt of competence.”

Milbank concludes by saying that on 1/6/21 “democracy was saved only by the bumbling of the coup plotters.” Next time, though, “we may not be so lucky.”

The Defense of Democracy

To a large extent, the defense of U.S. democracy is up to the Congress—and up to us voters who elect the 535 voting members of Congress. That is why next year’s election is so important. All 435 members of the House will be elected, of course, and 34 Senate seats will be decided.

But now the changes in election procedures in numerous states jeopardizes a truly democratic election next year.

The President was determinedly defending democracy at the Summit for Democracy last week. Now he must do everything necessary to defend U.S. democracy in 2022 and beyond.

Addendum: What about Democracy in the Church?

This article has been about the form of government employed, or rejected, by nation states. But what about churches, either as denominations or as local congregations? As a baptist (lower case intended), I am a strong advocate of democracy in church government.

I wonder, though, about the contradiction in the thinking of people who are advocates of democracy in the national government but have no qualms about accepting a hierarchical, non-democratic form of government for churches.

For example, is the completely hierarchical (authoritarian?) structure of the Roman Catholic Church, for example, in direct contradiction to the Pope’s good word about political democracy?

Leaving Lottie: My Sad Journey Away from the LMCO

This month I have been feeling nostalgic for the early Decembers fondly remembered in past years.

Those were times when I was privileged to preach/speak in Southern Baptist churches about world missions, which I always did with gladness—and with appreciation for the support received from those churches as an SB missionary. But, sadly, things have changed.

An Enthusiastic Supporter of the LMCO

Except for active Southern Baptists, past and/or present, few know (or care) what LMCO stands for. It means the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering, which has been a lifeline for missionaries deployed by the International Mission Board (IMB) of the Southern Baptist Convention. 

An IMB webpage explains that the LMCO “is an annual offering collected by Southern Baptists to support international missions. The offering was officially named in 1918 by Woman’s Missionary Union in honor of the missionary to China who urged churches to start it and give sacrificially.”

(For information about the SB missionary Lottie Moon, see my 12/26/12 blog article about her and the LMCO.)

The same IMB webpage reports, “Through the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering, Southern Baptists have given over $5 billion to international missions.” That’s a lot of money!

My family and I were on missionary “furlough,” now called “stateside assignment,” in 1971, ’76, ’81, ’86, and ’91. Each of those years provided opportunities to visit churches, especially in early December, to promote giving to/through the LMCO—and to thank Southern Baptists for their support.

A Reluctant Supporter of the LMCO

Since 1980, the Southern Baptist Convention steadily became more and more conservative/fundamentalist. In that same period, my own faith had grown in the opposite direction. In the 1990s I increasingly became only a rather reluctant supporter of the LMCO.

After 2000, it became even more difficult for me to promote the LMCO enthusiastically, as I had done for decades. The problem was the adoption of a revised Baptist Faith and Message document that, among other things, mitigated against women serving as pastors.

After being forced to retire as an SBC missionary in 2004, my support for the LMCO virtually ended in 2005. Reflecting back, I grieve over that sad separation from a long and meaningful relationship.

A Non-Supporter of the LMCO

As the SBC grew more and more conservative, being a Southern Baptist meant not only opposing women in ministry but also being stanchly opposed to pro-choice (=anti-abortion) and pro-LGBTQ (=anti-gay) positions.

Naturally, the change in the SBC meant that newly appointed missionaries, and those older missionaries who chose to remain with the SBC, were mainly those who agreed with SBC’s theological and ethical positions.

It was not too surprising, then, that an overwhelming majority of Southern Baptists voted for Trump in 2016 and 2020. And it seems that Baptists in other countries have been influenced in the same direction by SB missionaries.

Brazil is one of the countries to which Southern Baptists have sent the most missionaries for the longest time. As a boy, I grew up hearing about the Bagbys of Brazil. Buck and Anne Bagby arrived in Brazil as SB missionaries in 1881. Five of their nine children later became missionaries to Brazil.

But just as Baptists in the U.S. have been, and still are, big supporters of Trump, in recent years Brazilian Baptists (and other evangelicals) have been strong supporters of President Jair Bolsonaro.

Bolsonaro (b. 1955) has reportedly remained a Catholic. But in 2016 he was baptized (immersed) in the Jordan River by an evangelical pastor, and he attends the Baptist church where his wife is a member.

Mrs. Bolsonaro’s church is the Attitude Baptist Church (interesting name!), which was organized in 2000 mainly through the work of an SB missionary.

“Bolsonaro’s faith-based enablers” is a Dec. 1 Christian Century article that describes how Bolsonaro and his evangelical support in Brazil mirror Trump and his evangelical support in the U.S.

As an outspoken critic of Christian fundamentalism for the past two decades, I am sadly no longer able to affirm a mission board and the long-esteemed LMCO which now mainly supports conservative evangelical missionaries who nourish similar believers in other nations, such as Brazil.

From the C.S.A. to the R.S.A.?

As you know, C.S.A. stands for the Confederate States of America, which was formed 160 years ago. Here I am raising the question of whether now in the 2020s the U.S.A. may be headed toward becoming the R.S.A., the Republican States of America.

The Forming of the C.S.A.

In February 1861, seven U.S. states formed a new “nation,” calling it the Confederate States of America. Those states were Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas. Four more states (Arkansas, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia) joined the C.S.A. later.

Back in 2004, Kansas University professor Kevin Willmott was the director and writer of the movie C.S.A. It was a “mockumentary” that portrayed an alternate history wherein the Confederacy won the Civil War and the Union became the Confederate States of America. 

Although it is certainly not depicted in the same way as in Willmott’s movie, American historian Heather Cox Richardson has authored a book titled How the South Won the Civil War: Oligarchy, Democracy, and the Continuing Fight for the Soul of America (2020).

I have been on the waiting list for a library copy of Richardson’s book, so I have not read any of it yet—but I read her daily “Letters from an American,” which can be accessed here, and have learned much about U.S. history from her. (I highly recommend her daily “letter.”)

As depicted both in the creative movie and the historical book mentioned above, it is clear that the influence of the C.S.A. certainly did not end with its defeat at the end of the Civil War.

The Forming of the R.S.A.?

The influence of the C.S.A. seems to be “alive and well” in much of the Republican Party today. All the C.S.A. states of the 1860s voted for Trump in 2016 and all except Georgia did the same in 2020—although to this day Trump and a majority of Republicans believe the election there was “stolen.”

This article is not a condemnation of the Republican Party as such. The country needs a strong two-party system, with moderate Republicans who are willing to work with Democrats for the good of all who live in the nation—as well as for the good of the people of the world.

Oligarchy is “a government in which a small group exercises control especially for corrupt and selfish purposes” (Merriam-Webster). Sadly, this seems to be the direction the Republican Party has been moving, especially since 2016.

Thus, I am writing this in opposition to the Republican politicians who seem to be greedy for power and willing to do anything necessary to achieve or maintain political power, even if it means largely destroying democracy.

Even though I think they are mistaken, we have to acknowledge that on the other side there are many supporters of the Republican Party who sincerely believe that the Democrats are “enemies,” and that drastic means may be necessary to save the country from tyranny and/or from “socialism.”

The power-hungry Republicans, beginning with Donald J. Trump and Mitch McConnell, seem to have done a good job in selling their skewed views to the Republican base, with the considerable help they have received from Fox News and their “opinion-makers” such as Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson.

Through voter suppression, gerrymandering, and voting results controlled by state legislatures, Republicans may well gain the majority in Congress in 2022 and the presidency in 2024. Those victories may be semi-permanent, leading to the forming of a de facto R.S.A., even if that name is not used.**

So, What Can Be Done?

If we want the USA to survive and not become the RSA, what can we do? Here are three succinct suggestions:

1) Keep advocating truth-telling, civilly opposing falsehoods and misleading statements, always championing peace and justice.

2) Keep voting for political leaders most concerned for the welfare of the populace, especially of those most oppressed by social or economic discrimination.

3) Keep being hopeful, firm in your belief that, in time, “The Wrong shall fail, / The Right prevail,” as expressed in Longfellow’s Christmas carol.

_____

** I hadn’t seen Republican States of America used anywhere until after I had finished writing this article, but here is what I then found in a 5/7/21 Washington Post piece: “Trump has emerged from his West Palm Beach hibernation — refashioning himself as the president of the Republican States of America.”

In Memory of J. Howard Pew and Appreciation for Pew Research Center

This post is about a notable man about whom I have mixed feelings and about a notable research center about which I have much appreciation. I am writing about J. Howard Pew, who died 50 years ago (on Nov. 27, 1971) at the age of 89, and about the Pew Research Center, sponsored mainly by The Pew Charitable Trusts. 

The Notable J. Howard Pew

In the Presbyterian church in the small city of Bradford, Pennsylvania, the pews were often occupied by Pews. Joseph Newton Pew, Sr., (1848~1912), founder of the Sun Oil Company (later Sonoco), was a devout Presbyterian and he raised his children to be the same.

In 1876, the Presbyterians started a “normal school” in Grove City, Penn. After it became Grove City College, J. Howard Pew enrolled there, graduating at the age of 18 in 1900. Later he served as president of the board of trustees of his alma mater for four decades.

After his father’s death, J. Howard became the president of Sun Oil Company at the age of 30 and soon became a wealthy man.

Pew was a strong conservative, both theologically and politically. Using his oil money, he helped found the National Association of Evangelicals in 1942, Fuller Theological Seminary in 1947, and Christianity Today, the influential evangelical magazine launched by Billy Graham, in 1956.

Politically, Pew was a staunch Republican and opponent of FDR and the New Deal in the 1930s. In 2018, one scholar wrote about Pew’s “Godly Conservatism.” His conservative politics were rooted in his conservative evangelical views.

The Notable Pew Research Center

While I disagree with many of J. Howard Pew’s theological and political views, I much appreciate the work of the Pew Research Center, which since 1996 has been largely supported by The Pew Charitable Trusts, which was established by Pew and his siblings.

In spite of Pew’s strong conservative evangelical and Republican views, The Pew Research Center (PRC) is a non-partisan think tank, or as it refers to itself, a “fact tank.”

Now based in Washington, D.C., PRC describes itself as “a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world.”

They go on to explain, “We conduct public opinion polling, demographic research, content analysis and other data-driven social science research. We do not take policy positions.”

Society benefits greatly from the extensive work of the PRC as it provides accurate information on social issues, public opinion, and trends shaping the United States and the world.

A Notable Pew Research Center Survey

On November 18, PRC released a report titled “What Makes Life Meaningful? Views From 17 Advanced Economies.” That survey clearly indicates that one source of meaning is predominant: family.

In 14 of the 17 advanced economies surveyed, more mention their family as a source of meaning in their lives than any other factor.

However, outside of the U.S., religion is never one of the top 10 sources of meaning cited—and no more than 5% of any non-U.S. public mention it. In this country, however, 15% mention religion or God as a source of meaning, making it the fifth most mentioned topic.

Here is a chart showing how the 17 countries ranked on the “what makes life meaningful” poll. 

I was surprised that only 15% of USAmericans said “faith” is what makes life meaningful—but even more surprised that no more than 5% of the people in any other country said that, as indicated on the image on the right. 

Back in 1912, Walter Rauschenbusch, the proponent of the social gospel that was opposed by conservative evangelicals such as J. Howard Pew, wrote,

No material comfort and plenty can satisfy the restless soul in us and give us peace with ourselves. All who have made test of it agree that religion alone holds the key to the ultimate meaning of life.**

I agree with Rauschenbusch and with the 15% in this country who say that faith makes life meaningful.

What about you?

_____

** These significant words are included in To Live in God: Daily Reflections with Walter Rauschenbusch (2020), p. 21.

Overcoming Thanksgiving Day Myths

Tomorrow is Thanksgiving Day in the U.S.—and it is the 400^th anniversary of what is often said to be the first Thanksgiving Day. In 1621, the Plymouth colonists and Native People called Wampanoag* shared an autumn harvest feast that became the basis of the common Thanksgiving story.

November has also once again this year been designated as National Native American Heritage Month. In light of the latter, many of us USAmericans need to overcome various Thanksgiving Day myths that have long been abroad in the land.

Acknowledging Thanksgiving Day Myths

Kaitlin Curtice is a Potawatomi woman and a Christian. In her 2020 book Native: Identity, Belonging, and Rediscovering God, she writes how she and other Native Americans are “bombarded with Thanksgiving myths” every November and how hard that is.

Curtice writes, “My non-Native friends have to understand that the myths told at Thanksgiving only continue the toxic stereotypes and hateful language that has always been spewed at us” (pp. 67, 68)

“The Thanksgiving Myth” by Native Circle is explained here in a 2019 post. The authors write, “The big problem with the American Thanksgiving holiday is its false association with American Indian people; the infamous 'Indians and pilgrims' myth.”

They continue, “It is good to celebrate Thanksgiving, to be thankful for your blessings. It is not good to distort history, to falsely portray the origin of this holiday and lie about the truth of its actual inception.”

David Silverman, a professor at George Washington University who specializes in Native American and Colonial American history, tells the true American Thanksgiving story in This Land is Their Land: The Wampanoag Indians, Plymouth Colony, and the Troubled History of Thanksgiving (2019).

As UCC pastor Jane McBride writes in her helpful Christian Century review, Silverman begins his lengthy book “by shattering the myth of the first Thanksgiving.” Then in his concluding paragraph, Silverman asserts,

The truth exposes the traditional tale of the First Thanksgiving as a myth rather than history, and so let us declare it dead except as a subject for the study of nineteenth- and twentieth-century American culture (p. 427).

References to Thanksgiving myths are not just recent incidences, though. Back in 1986, Chuck Larsen, a high school history teacher in the state of Washington, wrote how the Thanksgiving stories most children have learned are “a mixture of both history and myth.”

Larson emphasized the “need to try to reach beyond the myths to some degree of historical truth.” He also said, “When you build a lesson on only half of the information, then you are not teaching the whole truth. That is why I used the word myth.”**

Thankfully, there are many more resources available now for learning the truth of the first Thanksgiving than were available in 1986, so there is no excuse for us to hang on to the old myths.

Overcoming Thanksgiving Day Myths

There is an abundance of ways to celebrate Thanksgiving Day without reiterating the Thanksgiving myths, which tend to foster white Christian nationalism and to whitewash the harsh mistreatment of Native Americans.

We can begin to overcome those myths by listening to the scholars such as Silverman and/or to Native American voices such as Larsen’s as found in his article linked to in the second footnote below.

Then, we can overcome Thanksgiving myths by focusing primarily on the many blessings we have received from Creator God, who dearly loves each person and all the people groups in God’s good Creation.

_____

* “This tribe helped the Pilgrims survive for their first Thanksgiving. They still regret it 400 years later. Long marginalized and misrepresented in U.S. history, the Wampanoags are bracing for the 400th anniversary of the first Pilgrim Thanksgiving in 1621” (headlines of a Nov. 4 Washington Post article).

** Larsen, who has Native American ancestry, wrote “Introduction for Teachers” to help them in teaching the truth about Thanksgiving Day. That instructive piece has been reproduced in many places, but here is a link to a PDF version. It is well worth reading.

In Fond Memory of Luther Copeland

His obituary begins, “Dr. Edwin Luther Copeland, missionary, educator, scholar, beloved husband and father, died on November 19, 2011, in Raleigh, North Carolina.” Today on the tenth anniversary of his passing, I am posting this blog article in fond memory of Dr. Copeland, who was my much-respected colleague, good personal friend, and meritorious mentor. 

Getting to Know Luther Copeland

Even though I don’t remember any details, I probably first heard about Dr. Copeland when I was a graduate student at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He was a professor of Christian Missions and World Religions at Southeastern Seminary in North Carolina at that time.

It is also quite likely that I read his small “study course” book Christianity and World Religions not long after it was published in 1963. But I first saw Dr. Copeland at the 1965 Baptist World Congress, which met in Miami Beach. I was impressed with his ideas articulated in opposition to those of Dr. Cal Guy, the Missions professor at Southwestern Seminary in Texas.

I first met Dr. Copeland in person early in 1976 when he became Chancellor of Seinan Gakuin, the school system in Japan where I had been teaching since 1968. Because of our missionary “furlough” in 1976-77, it was mainly from the summer of 1977 to the spring of 1980 that I really got to know him—and to become very fond of him.

Early in 1979, he nominated me to be Dean of Religious Activities at Seinan Gakuin University, so we had extensive contact during the academic year that began on April 1. During that busy year, I came to admire him greatly and profited much from his wisdom and mature expression of the Christian faith.

Learning More about Luther Copeland

By the time he and his talented wife Louise left Japan in 1980, I had learned much about Dr. Copeland. I learned much more about him over 20 years later after he published his memoirs.

Early on, I learned that Dr. Copeland was born in 1916 in West Virginia, and I knew that he worked in the logging business with his father before starting to college. In 1944 at the age of 28, he graduated from Furman University. Two years later he graduated from Southern Seminary and then earned his Ph.D. degree at Yale University in 1949.

In 1946, Luther and Louise Tadlock were married, and they became the parents of five children. They were appointed Southern Baptist missionaries to Japan in 1948. In November 1952, he became the fifth chancellor of Seinan Gakuin, the school system that was established in the year of his birth.

The Copelands returned to the U.S. in 1956 when Luther was employed to teach at Southeastern Seminary. But then he was elected as the 12^th Chancellor of Seinan Gakuin in 1975, succeeding his (and my) friend Max Garrott for the second time.**

After completing that term of service, Luther moved out of the Chancellor’s office on March 31, 1980. Sixteen years and one day later, I had the great privilege and challenge of moving into that office.

In 2001, Dr. Copeland self-published a book titled Memoirs of a Geezer: From the Timber Woods and Back. It is 375 pages long and contains 48 “illustrations.” I found it noteworthy that on the last page of that book, published just before his 85^th birthday, Luther wrote,

I am convinced that for most of us, our God is too small. If God has created everything that is, surely God is interested in all the creation. I often pray that God will make my interests as broad as God’s interests.

Holding Fond Memories of Luther Copeland

Though there is so much more I could write here, I will briefly mention just three reasons I was and remain fond of Luther Copeland.

* He was a man with both intellectual curiosity and intellectual honesty.

* He was a man who never “put on airs” but related to everyone as a human being of equal worth.

* He was a committed Christian who embraced the breadth of God’s love over the narrowness often seen in historical Christianity.

Knowing Luther Copeland helped me to strive for those same characteristics.

_____

** On June 20, 2020, the 110^th anniversary of his birth, I posted a blog article titled “In Fond Memory of Max Garrott.” 

Embarrassed by Gitmo

The Mauritanian (2021) is a powerful movie. After watching it last month, I felt the need to write something about the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, often referred to as Gitmo. What has gone on there is an embarrassment to me and many like-minded USAmericans. 

What is Gitmo?

Guantánamo is a bay on the southeast side of Cuba. In 1903, after the Spanish-American War in 1898 that resulted in the independence of Cuba, the U.S. leased 45 square miles of the outer harbor of the bay and established a naval base there.

The U.S. Guantanamo Bay Naval Base has existed ever since its inception, but in January 2002, following the 9/11/01 attacks on the U.S., the Guantanamo Bay detention camp was opened as a military prison. Since that time, 780 men have been detained there.

Most of the detainees—and that term is used, rather than prisoners—have been transferred elsewhere, and with the release of a Moroccan man last month there are only 39 there now.

The detention camp, which is popularly referred to as simply Guantanamo or Gitmo, or even just GTMO, has for years now been the target of intense criticism by human rights groups because of the use of torture and indefinite detention without trial.

The cost of Gitmo is also astounding. In June of this year, the Friends Committee on National Legislation reported that it costs $13 million per year to hold each detainee at Guantánamo.

Who is the Mauritanian?

Mohamedou Ould Slahi was born in the West African country of Mauritania in 1970. He was detained without charge in Gitmo for fourteen years (from 2002 to 2016) and also tortured in his early years there. 

In the summer and early fall of 2005, Slahi handwrote a 466-page, 122,000-word draft of his memoirs in his single-cell segregation hut in Guantánamo. That manuscript was finally published with extensive redactions in 2015, and then a restored reversion (without redactions) was issued in 2017.

The Mauritanian, the movie, stars Tahar Rahim as Slahi and Jodie Foster as the American lawyer seeking his release. Slahi’s book was originally titled Guantánamo Diary, but since the movie was released, it is now being sold under the title The Mauritanian—and my local library has the Kindle edition.

To learn more, and current, information about Slahi, see this Wikipedia article.

Why is Gitmo an Embarrassment?

As early as 2005, CBS News reported that Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the Judiciary Committee’s senior Democrat, called the detention center “an international embarrassment to our nation, to our ideals, and it remains a festering threat to our security.”

Amnesty International has long been a severe critic of Gitmo, and early this year they published a long appeal (more than 50 pages) calling on the U.S. government to close Gitmo—as Pres. Obama pledged to do but was unable to because of Republican opposition.

Amnesty clearly declares, “The military prison at Guantánamo Bay represents grave violations of human rights by the U.S. government.” That charge should be an embarrassment to all of us who are U.S. citizens.

As one who long identified as a “white evangelical,” I am also embarrassed by this: “Close to six-in-ten white evangelicals in the South say that torture can often (20%) or sometimes (37%) be justified in order to gain important information.”

That statement from a 2008 Pew Research Center poll, is included in Religious Faith, Torture, and Our National Soul, a 2010 book edited by David P. Gushee, who also long identified as an evangelical but who was also adamantly opposed to torture.

Chapter 4 of that book is Gushee’s, and it is titled “What the Torture Debate Reveals about American Christianity.” There are four authors of the next chapter, Guantánamo: An Assessment and Reflections from Those Who Have Been There.”

I fully agree with Dr. Gushee and the other contributors to his book, with Amnesty International, and with Pres. Obama’s attempt to close Gitmo, and I ask you to join me in signing this appeal by Amnesty International. (To learn more about Gitmo, click on this website of Human Rights First.)

Not Joshing: Reflections on Masculinity, Femininity, and Humanity

On October 31, Senator Josh Hawley spoke at the National Conservatism Conference, which met in Orlando, Fla. His keynote address was titled “The Future of the American Man.” In that talk, he criticized the Left’s attacks on masculinity. But what does it mean to be masculine—or feminine? More importantly, what does it mean to be human?

Sen. Hawley is Not Joshing

Even though I am a Missourian, as you know or could easily guess, I am not a fan of Missouri’s junior Senator, Josh Hawley. My most widely read blog article of 2021 is “Hawley with Blood on His Hands,” posted on January 8. And his political statements/actions since then have been consistently bad.

It is sometimes hard to distinguish what politicians really think or believe from what they say to attract voters. Because of his possible candidacy for POTUS in 2024, or later, Sen. Hawley—as well as Sens. Cruz of Texas and Cotton of Arkansas—may say things to gain the attention of Trumpists.

Sen. Hawley seems not to be joshing, though, when he criticizes the Left for abetting the loss of masculinity among USAmerican males. Listen to his 26-minute speech (here) or read it (here) and see what you think.

In that speech, Hawley disingenuously declares, “The Left want to define traditional masculinity as toxic. They want to define the traditional masculine virtues—things like courage, and independence, and assertiveness—as a danger to society.”

Prof. Du Mez is Not Joshing

An opposite viewpoint is presented by Kristin Kobes Du Mez, a professor of history at Calvin University and the author of the bestselling book, Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation (2021).

Prof. Du Mez is not joshing when she declares early in her book that conservative evangelical Christians have often “replaced the Jesus of the Gospels with a vengeful warrior Christ.”

Accordingly, “evangelical support for Trump was no aberration, nor was it merely a pragmatic choice. It was, rather, the culmination of evangelicals’ embrace of militant masculinity, an ideology that enshrines patriarchal authority and condones the callous display of power, at home and abroad.”

Although she doesn’t use the words “toxic masculinity,” a widely-used term since early in 2019, Du Mez’s book speaks to the same perceived problem.

A 1/22/19 NYTimes article “What is Toxic Masculinity?” explains: “Toxic masculinity is what can come of teaching boys that they can’t express emotion openly; that they have to be ‘tough all the time’; that anything other than that makes them ‘feminine’ or weak. (No, it doesn’t mean that all men are inherently toxic.)”

In her writing about militant masculinity, though, Du Mez embraces most of the same ideas. And she is not joshing in her rejection of that as a Christian ideal—or in her rejection of what she sees in White conservative evangelicalism’s emphasis on “submissive femininity.”

I am Not Joshing

Rather than emphasizing masculinity or femininity, I strongly believe in placing stress upon humanity—and I am defining humanity in a slightly different way than usual.

If masculinity/femininity is as Dictionary.com says, “the quality or condition of being masculine/feminine” then perhaps it is not a stretch to say that humanity is primarily the quality or condition of being human.

Being human is more important than men being masculine or women being feminine.

Being human is more important than being male or female (or “x,” which is now a passport option for gender).

Being human is more important than being White or BIPOC.

Being human is more important than being straight or LGBTQ.

According to Genesis 1:27, “God created humanity in God’s own image” (CEB). In spite of gender differences, or any other differences, all people are primarily, and most importantly, human beings, equally created in the image of God.

This doesn’t mean differences should be denied, but those differences should be kept secondary. Regardless of their differences, all human beings are created as persons of equal worth.

So, yes, I am not joshing when I agree that toxic or militant masculinity is bad for everyone—as are toxic politicians such as Sen. Hawley.

Considering the Complexity of Human Beings: The Case of Woodrow Wilson

So, what do you think about the presidential election of ’16? Actually, there have been three elections in ’16, the first being in 1816 when James Monroe was elected POTUS. And then in the election of 2016 you know who was elected for four tumultuous years.

In between, in the election 105 years ago on Nov. 7, 1916, Woodrow Wilson was elected for a second term as POTUS. Thus, for four more challenging years the U.S. was to be led by a complex man.

The Making of Pres. Wilson

Thomas Woodrow Wilson, called Tommy until adulthood, was born in 1856 in Staunton, Virginia, where his father was pastor of the Presbyterian church in that small (under 4,000 residents) northeast Virginia town where the Wilson Presidential Library and Museum is now located.

Tommy became a well-educated man, graduating in 1879 from the College of New Jersey (which became Princeton University in 1896) and then earning a Ph.D. in political science and history at Johns Hopkins University in 1886.

Wilson served as president of Princeton U. from 1902 to 1910, then in November 1910 he was elected governor of New Jersey with about 54% of the vote. He resigned as governor as of March 1, 1913, after being elected POTUS.

In the presidential election of 1912, Wilson defeated the incumbent, Republican William Howard Taft, former president Theodore Roosevelt, who came in second running for the Progressive Party, and Eugene Debs, the Socialist candidate who received 6% of the popular vote.

The Positives and Negatives of Pres. Wilson

According to this American history website, “Wilson brought a brilliant intellect, strong moral convictions, and a passion for reform to his two terms as president.”

Commendably, Wilson had a strong belief in peace and international cooperation. Consistent with that belief, he appointed William Jennings Bryan, a pacifist, as his Secretary of State at the beginning of his first term.

President Wilson campaigned for re-election in 1916 under the slogan “He has kept us out of war”—and he was narrowly elected to a second term. 

Ironically, the following month after his March 1917 inauguration, the complex Wilson addressed Congress and emphasized the need for the U.S. to enter the war in Europe. Among other things, he said U.S. participation in the “Great War” was necessary “to make the world safe for democracy.”

In January 1918, though, Wilson proposed a 14-point peace plan, the last point being the creation of the League of Nations—and for that proposal he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for 1919.

In spite of this and other very positive aspects of Wilson’s presidency, there were negatives as well—the main one being his well-documented racism, which was seen during his years as the president of Princeton U. as well as after he entered the White House.

Because of Wilson’s obvious racism, in June 2020 the Princeton University board of trustees decided to delete Wilson’s name from the university’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.

The trustees stated that Wilson’s "racist thinking and policies” made him “an inappropriate namesake for a school or college whose scholars, students, and alumni must stand firmly against racism in all its forms."

The Point

As perhaps can be said about every human being, Woodrow Wilson was a complex person. As indicated above, there are ample reasons to admire him—and certainly many more could have been included.**

There are also sufficient reasons to find fault with him, although most are minor compared to his unfortunate racism.

What was true of Woodrow Wilson is true of everyone. Human beings are complex; everyone is a mixture of good and bad traits, ideas, and actions. Thus, perhaps no one deserves to be put on a pedestal and publicly honored in perpetuity.

_____

** For helpful information about key, and mostly positive, events from Wilson’s election in 1912 until the end of his presidency in 1921, click on this link.