Even before the Pilgrims reached the New World, the practice of Thanksgiving was part of colonial life. David D. Hall writes that "Twice en route the passengers [aboard the Mayflower] participated in a fast, and once (two days after sounding ground beneath the Arbella) a 'thanksgiving.' When the sailing season ended with all ships accounted for, 'we had a day of thanksgiving in all the plantations.'" A settlement of French Huguenots, fifty years before the Pilgrims, established a colony near present-day Jacksonville, Florida, and declared a time of thanksgiving to God for His faithfulness.

In 1610, after a hard winter called "the starving time," the colonists at Jamestown called for a time of thanksgiving, even though the colony had been reduced from 409 to 60 survivors. They prayed for food and provisions that arrived from England a few days later. An annual commemoration of thanksgiving was begun nine years later in 1619 in another part of the Virginia colony.

In 1621 the best known of the early thanksgiving celebrations took place in Plymouth, following the harvest. One of the colony's founders wrote of that day: "Our harvest being gotten in, 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. . . . Many of the Indians coming amongst us, and the rest their greatest king, Massasoit, with some ninety men, whom for three days we entertained and feasted. . . . 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."

None of these celebrations were national, of course, but each demonstrates strong roots in biblical Christianity. President Abraham Lincoln on 3 October 1863 declared that the last Thursday of November would be set aside as a nationwide celebration of thanksgiving. Listen to his proclamation: "No human counsel hath devised, nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the most high God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, that nevertheless remembered mercy. . . . I do, therefore, invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday in November next as a day of Thanksgiving and praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in heaven." Every US President since Lincoln has followed suit. FDR changed the celebration to the third Thursday in November to provide more shopping time between Thanksgiving and Christmas.

The commercialism and shallowness of the Thanksgiving holiday is our portion today. Many children studying about this event in their textbooks are not even aware that Thanksgiving is rooted in the tradition of thanking God. Perhaps in 2001, with the events of 9/11 so vivid in our memory, we can restore the original intent of the Thanksgiving tradition giving thanks to God for His providence, His care and His awesome provision. These early celebrations of thanksgiving were expressions of deep gratitude to God for life itself. Thanks for His bounty and for the reality of life itself such is the true meaning of Thanksgiving Day 2001!

See the helpful article by Gary DeMar, "First Fruits," in Tabletalk (November 2001).

Back to top

THE ANCIENT RIVALRIES IN AFGHANISTAN

The remarkable collapse of the Taliban has caused some ugly hatreds to rise to the surface once again in Afghanistan. These ancient rivalries must be understood and dealt with forcefully or we will see old blood feuds seething again in this desperate country. How do we understand these tribal rivalries?

The Pashtun a group of tribes that accounts for about 40% of the country's 26 million people have ruled Afghanistan since the 18th century. Most of the Taliban are Pashtun and their rule of the north has been brutal. They have mercilessly persecuted the Uzbek and Hazara ethnic minorities of the north. Currently, the Northern Alliance troops largely made up of Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras are seeking revenge on the Taliban for their ruthless rule. It is this rivalry between these ethnic groups that has caused over 11,300 Pakistani Pashtuns to join the Taliban in fighting the Northern Alliance and America. That struggle is now being fought out in the city of Konduz.

Uniting the various ethic groups with the Pashtuns to form some kind of national unity government will not be easy. Afghan vendettas date back centuries. Not only do the Pashtun tribes despise the ethnic minorities of the Northern Alliance, feuds between these groups drag on for generations, with every man called upon to defend his tribe's honor. Furthermore, a deadly rivalry has been running since the 16th century between two main Pashtun tribes, the Durranis and the Ghilzais. The Taliban leader, Muhammad Omar, is a Ghilzai, as are most of the Taliban's top commanders. Their opponents are all Durranis. Currently, a pro-Western Pashtun nobleman named Hamad Karzai is urging all of the Pashtun tribal leaders to rally behind the exiled king, Muhammad Zahir Shah. It is doubtful this will succeed.

So, you can see that the politics of Afghanistan, now that the Taliban are neutralized, are complex and difficult. To build a new nation out of these rivalries and blood feuds is formidable. Furthermore, these feuds and disagreements have nothing to do with Islam. Islam under the Taliban was the glue to bring the Afghani people of all of these ethnic differences together. Its rigidity and inflexible brand of Islam did not work. Perhaps the gospel of Jesus Christ, which can transcend these tribal and ethnic hatreds, can bring the unity that centuries of hatred have prevented. We should be praying that the new Afghanistan will be open to the gospel in a manner not known in recent history. They need the Lord, and the new openness of Afghani society could be the answer to years of prayers lifted on behalf of this desperately needy country.

See Time (19 November 2001), p. 53.

Back to top

BIAS IN GOVERNMENT: DOES IT MATTER WHO IS IN AFGHANISTAN?

Two recent developments support the thesis that it does matter who is the President and whom he appoints to his Cabinet:

In 1997 Oregon became, by state referendum, the first state to legalize doctor-assisted suicide, in what is called the Death with Dignity Act. Nearly two weeks ago, US Attorney General John Ashcroft directed drug enforcement agents to take action against doctors who give patients the medical means to kill themselves under Oregon's 1997 law. (This order reverses Janet Reno's 1998 declaration barring federal agents from moving against Oregon doctors. At least 70 people have ended their lives since the 1997 Oregon law took effect. Federally controlled substances in all cases have been the means of death.)

Oregon's attorney general's office has filed suit against the federal government to block Ashcroft's order. Al Weir, president of the Christian Medical Association, has correctly stated that "When we as physicians can no longer prolong life, pain medicines will often allow us to relieve suffering by decreasing pain. To use the same drugs to purposely shorten the life of a patient in our care defeats both legitimate physician goals." It does make a difference who is the US Attorney General.

John Ashcroft has made the right and just decision. See World (17 November 2001), p. 12.

According to Chuck Colson, a few weeks ago the White House Office of Faith Based and Community Initiatives issued a report that demonstrates the remarkable discriminatory treatment many faith-based groups are experiencing in the US. One example of such practices involved a Head Start program in Worcester, Massachusetts. Prior to each class, the teacher covered up all the religious imagery and Bible verses in the building where they were meeting. They believed that federal law required them to do so. It does not!

But this demonstrates the convictions of Barry Lynn of the Americans United for Separation of Church and State who argued about this case that "taxpayers must never be forced to support religions they don't believe in." But would Lynn argue that Americans should never be asked to support art they do not believe in? Such arguments are clear government has an obligation to support art and ideas many find offensive. Therefore in this mindset, the First Amendment protects artists but not religious workers, a double standard, Colson argues, "that makes neither moral nor constitutional sense." President Bush has promised to end this "governmental bias" against faith-based groups. May he succeed! Again, who is in the Office of the President does make a difference.

See "Breakpoint" (15 November 2001).

Back to top