Pew Versus Pulpit
Like many of our ancestors, mine were God fearing and stoic in their belief. Reverence and respect were the bywords by which congregations gathered and worshiped. My ancestors in New England in 1659 were a puritan lot, wholly dedicated to the Lord. This is a part of the story of the beginnings of their church in Topsfield, MA, and what relevance it holds for our church today.
Topsfield, as so many towns in the Bay Colony, had had its problems with settling a church and obtaining a minister since its inception. In nearly every town in New England, the church and the minister were the main topics of conversation and at the bottom of many related quarrels. At the root of colony religious dissension was an ideal that each "congregation would be a little knot of brothers tied together by their common interests...great emphasis was put upon loving one another and peaceableness."
This worked out pretty well as planned in the first years of the Colony, but as the second generation came of age and appeared on the scene, members began to split into factions; the majority prevailing even over the minister. He previously was the one who could get everyone to come together and smooth over the rough patches. In later times, he could become a polarizing figure in the community. Even so, most individuals held a "genuine respect for the sacredness of his office and the pre-eminent position accorded to the man of God himself."
The Colony ruled that towns were responsible for paying their ministers, plus every citizen was required by law to attend the local church services. This brought politics into religion which was never a good mix. Setting his salary was the first and foremost item, before he even arrived on the scene. Setting his salary was one thing and collecting it was quite another; it was usually made up of a small amount of money, the bulk "in kind" (farm produce, bushels of grain, etc.) and his firewood - cut and delivered. It rarely worked out as promised, and he was forced many times to go to court to collect his wages. At best, he was forced to farm or perform other secular work to make ends meet for his family.The life of a village preacher was a demanding one. There were numerous written and unwritten rules for him - he was to tend to his religious duties and study, but he also had to farm or teach to support his family. He had to deal with the minutest concerns of his parishioners. "He was expected to be highly educated, set an example of 'holy walking'...and denied the privilege of attending town meetings as he was supposed to be divorced from mere politics."
There is some confusion whether Rev. Perkins, (Topsfield’s first preacher) was ever ordained as minister of Topsfield, even though he preached for the congregation there from 1656 to early 1663. Ordination of a minister in those days was the flock's approval of him and his work among them, but many times it did not occur for several years. The day of ordination was a day-long celebration and people came from miles around to join all the festivities, albeit sacred."In 1659 (early spring), a notable incident occurred. Zaccheus Gould is said to have sat down on the end of the table about which the minister and scribe sit, with his hat full on his head and his back toward all the rest. Although spoken to by the minister and others he altered not his posture. He spoke audibly when the minister was preaching....Zaccheus was presented Mar. 29 (1659) at the Ipswich Court for disturbance in public worship at the time of singing the psalm. Witnesses against him were the officiating minister, Rev. William Perkins and Isaac Cummings. Cummings' name appears on various occasions as a complainant against Zaccheus and his son John. The order of the Court was that the defendant be admonished."
Zaccheus' actions during that church service may have been the result of 3 years of Perkins' sermons; something said during the service, his mannerisms, or the lack of an uplifting message - Zaccheus had had enough. Others in the congregation may have felt the same but would never act on it..Information in records and narrative lead us to believe that numerous members in the Bay Colony found their church services becoming "dry" and uninspiring.
Villages throughout the Colony had problems with their preachers, most showing their disaffection by withholding their ministerial rates, not by disrupting the services with their hats on in the meeting house and their backs to the congregation. After some reflection following his outburst during the "singing of the psalm", Zaccheus asked for permission to speak to the Congregation after the next service, which was granted him. They may have expected an apology, but whether they got one or not is unknown. Apparently what they heard was a talk sympathetic to the Baptists and Quakers* which many did not care to hear, so they walked out on him. He had done little good for himself that day. It was not long until Zaccheus Gould was "summoned to Court to answer the complaint of his abusive carriages in the meeting house..." His punishment was admonishment, not a fine.Perkins did not please a good number of people (my ancestor Zaccheus Gould a leading detractor) so when "Topsfield proposed to organize a church 'in regular form', they passed over Mr. Perkins, then 56 years old, and an invitation to preach was extended to Mr. Thomas Gilbert of Charlestown." "Thomas Gilbert was a Scotsman, born there 1610; his religious education is not listed, but he was a minister at Chedlic and Edling in England." "Gilbert had been a clergyman of the Established Church of England, but ejected from his benefice by the 'Act of Uniformity' in 1662." He then emigrated to New England and settled in Charlestown. Sometime in early 1663, Topsfield officials approached him and offered the position in Topsfield as their new religious leader, also informing him they were planning to build a new meeting house and a parsonage for him to bring his wife to. The prickly subject of his salary had to be dealt with early in this meeting, and after spelling out their situation and the fact that neighboring Rowley Villagers were part of the congregation, Gilbert finally agreed to come. But only if the Topsfield villagers paid his salary, and also the church members who lived in Rowley Village and attended the Topsfield Church.
"The Rowley Villagers agreed to Rev. Gilbert's request if a meeting house was placed nearer and in a more convenient location for them.....to further accommodate the Villagers, Topsfield voted they shall have the liberty to set up a house to shelter their horses near the new meeting house...and also a rest house to shelter themselves with a fire in it while they contribute to the ministry in Topsfield.". And so a new meeting house was begun and placed in what is now the older part of Pine Grove Cemetery - the parsonage in a near-by pasture.
"The new church was gathered and Rev. Gilbert ordained on Nov.4, 1663.In the beginning, Rev Gilbert certainly received the reverence ministers got from their flock in those times; "a hushed silence when in his presence with bows from even the principal men of the town." The new "church" may have been "gathered" by the time of Gilbert's ordination in early November, 1663, but the new building was probably not finished since the proposal for it was only made shortly before they approached Mr. Gilbert in Charlestown. Although being the rough, barn-like building most meeting houses were in those days, there is a possibility it could've been enclosed.
A good description of a typical house of worship of the late 1600s is aptly described in Water's book, "Ipswich In The Mass. Bay Colony", Vol.I, 1633-1700;..."the meeting house was a very humble structure...built of round logs chinked with clay or moss, or, of logs hewn square and piled blockhouse fashion, it served a double purpose of sanctuary and citadel. Its roof was thatched, no doubt. At best, it was a roughly boarded and shingled affair."
Services began at 9 o'clock in the morning on the Sabbath, announced by ringing of the bell or a drummer marching through town, beforehand, alerting worshippers that 9 o'clock was near. After the morning worship, there was a break - then this procedure began all over again for services at 2 o'clock in the afternoon.
On a Sabbath morning, parishioners approaching the place would see the walls covered with various and assorted notices tacked up - a kind of Puritan Bulletin Board, plus the gross sight of "dead wolf heads" nailed up on the front of the sanctuary" by bounty hunters as proof of their work to secure the moneys paid by the town. And always there, a copy of the "mandatory church attendance law", and who it covered and warning what the penalty was for absentism. Only the sick and disabled were exempt.
As worshippers entered the main door, "there was a central aisle that divided the interior into 2 parts - the men sat on one side and the women, with babies and small children, on the other. No pews, only benches. The interior was bare and cheerless. No plaster nor paint relieved the roughness and rawness of the walls and roof; the pulpit was destitute of any fine finish or coloring, only furnished with the Bible and the Psalm-book and the hour glass which revealed the length of the sermon to every worshipper." The floor was of rough, un-sanded boards, and a few small windows let in such low light, that at times the minister could barely make out the words he read to the congregation. There was no stove! No heat in the cold New England winters (members, early on, were allowed to bring their dogs to sit on their feet and keep them warm - later, small foot stoves filled with hot coals brought from home furnished some short relief from the cold.) and in the summer, the place was stifling hot and stuffy. Two hours every Sunday and one hour each Thursday evening, one was required to be there, sit, listen, and mull over every word from God's delegate.
"As they all came in, no 'sweet-toned' organ invited them to worship. There were instead, the rattle of scabbards, the clank of muskets. Every one above 18, except the magistrates and ministers....came with his musket or other firearms, duly equipped with match, powder, and bullets." Sentries outside, fully armed, performed guard duty during the services in case of an Indian attack.
A very formal atmosphere prevailed inside - one could not sit anywhere - each had their place! Depending on your community status, education, wealth, and age, you were assigned a certain seat. Later, you could have a more comfortable pew, which you had to build and pay for yourself, and get permission to place it in the sanctuary. The poorer members and servants sat at the back - the town leaders up front, the Deacon and magistrates sat around a table in front of the pulpit. Zaccheus and John Gould paid the highest ministerial rates in Topsfield at this time, and sat up in front, while Sarah Baker Gould and the several Gould children sat on the other side of the meeting house in the place reserved for the wives of those who paid the highest rates and were town leaders. Sitting on a bench for over an hour with several squirming children and/or a baby in a cold, dreary building may have seemed to women like putting in their time in Hell while still on earth.
Aside from the ordination of “Saint”, the foundations of this early church supports the very cornerstone of our own Christian Assembly of God. In some cases, we are recovering much of the determination and dedication prevalent in those beginning years of our nation. We express the same four convictions and have begun just recently to understand the importance of duty in direct involvement in national affairs. That we are all one people is commonly known. That we can live as one whole and still enjoy a personal religious experience is still being tested every day. Pew and pulpit working together will achieve the greatest good for this land and this generation.
Blessed be the name of the Lord.
The Man Who Hates America
I know that I risk offending many people by writing this editorial or being dismissed as a right-wing, conservative, fanatic; which I am by some definitions. However, I would prefer to be called an American. I believe in God and Jesus Christ; life and liberty; that abortion is murder; that people ought to be held accountable for their actions; that there is such a thing as absolutes; that right and wrong are not subjective; that personal freedom is not an excuse for immorality; that strong traditional families is good for children and society at large; that faith and integrity are virtuous; in the rule of law; and that the framers of our constitution meant what they said and said what they meant. Now that you know where I’m coming from you can see why I have been so frustrated (ticked, torque, and tortured) by the Obama Presidency.
As I reflect over the first six months of the Obama Presidency, it seems to me that everything the man has done is contrary to the things I believe, value, and have made America the greatest nation in history. At first, I thought Barak Obama was uncertain and unclear about his own agenda. When I learned that he voted present 130 times as an Illinois state senator, my first thought was that he couldn’t make up his mind. But as I have watched the man, I see that my first assessment is very wrong. He has an agenda that he is passionate about and believes in mightily. But until now, his real ambitions have been concealed.
At times I have attempted to give President Obama the benefit of the doubt by thinking he might be ignorant or foolish. Yet again, as I have watched him in action, he truly is an astute politician and stagiest. The man is brilliant. You can say many things about the President but stupid is not one of them. He is a liberal democrat. Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy; these men are liberal democrats too but Barak Obama supersedes them immensely. There is no comparison. These men were politicians and as such acted in ways that they thought would allow them to be re-elected. Remember how moderate, the liberal Clinton became after the Republicans took congress in 1994? He read the writing on the wall and adjusted accordingly. I do not see Barak Obama ever moving off his agenda. He is liberal but he is not your typical politician. He is a man on a mission.
I believe I know what his mission and motivation is. I did not come to this conclusion by listening to his words. Words are never a good measure of who a man is. I have come to this conclusion by examining his actions. Jesus said, you will know them by their fruit not their campaign slogans and promises. Barak Obama has been consistent in all his decisions and actions. He has a destination and has been methodically toward it.
What do the following all have in common?
· Abortion
· Homosexuality
· Drastic cuts in defense funding
· Anti-Semitism and favoritism for Palestinians
· Socialized medicine
· Alliances with labor unions
· Spending money like a drunken sailor
· Printing money at unprecedented rates
· Takeover of General Motors
· Government bailout of banks, mortgage companies, and insurance companies
· Oppressive taxation
· Proliferation of the Global Warming myth
· Rapid expansion of Government
· Appointments of Czars
· Legislative Judges on the Supreme Court
· Executive Orders that clearly violate the Constitution
· Attacks on the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights
· Disregard for State’s Rights
· The move towards European socialism and away from Capitalism and Free Enterprise
President Obama is methodically attacking everything that has made this nation great. With his radical support of abortion and gay rights and his opposition of the DOMA amendment, he is undermining marriage and the traditional family. Strong traditional families and family values have been the center piece of American life.
Americans love cars. With the hostile government takeover of the American auto industry, he can cut away another distinct American tradition. Through the myth of global warming and the promise of “energy freedom” he can further reshape America’s love for cars.
Through global warming and other environmental issues he seeks to hinder free enterprise and industry in America. American’s have been the most industrious nation on earth. Through other government controls, limits, and restrictions he hopes to end capitalism and introduce socialism. Another hallmark of the American way of life will be destroyed by government.
Independence, individualism, personal responsibility, and strong work ethic is being destroyed by government handouts and bailouts. Government controlled medicine is another attempt to rob Americans of their freedom.
FOCA, Fairness Doctrine, new proposals for new gun laws, hate crimes legislation; these have all been an attack on the Bill of Rights. Nearly every amendment in the bill of rights has been weakened or threatened by President Obama’s policies.
State bailouts, not yet a reality and the omnibus spending package is an attempt to gain greater control of the states. States are already puppets of the federal government. A strong local government, where the people have a greater say, has been one of America’s strengths. Individual freedoms are vanishing and state freedoms with them.
America’s military superiority is threatened by budget cuts that take defense spending to pre-World War 2 levels. Our military has not only protected our freedom but has come to the defense of millions around the world.
America’s most loyal alley has been Israel in recent years. But now, our President is more interested in gaining the support of Muslim nations. Why? Because he hates America’s Christian faith. Our support of Israel has been a source of divine blessing and if we continue to trouble Israel, God will trouble us.
Why all the spending? Why all the printing of money? To devalue the dollar. Obama no longer wants to be confronted with “In God we trust.” His policies will bankrupt America. America will need a bailout. The world will need a bailout. America will be independent no more. The Revolution was fought to secure America’s freedom from a European monarch. But soon, America will again be ruled by Europe. America will not be able to stand against attempts to create a global currency or government.
Obama hates America. Her ideals. Her God. The institutions and principles that has made her great. Obama wants to eradicate patristic America in preference of a Europe-like; Europe friendly, socialism. America will never be the same again.
Urgent! Oppose S.909
Urgent! Call US Senators Durbin & Burris to Oppose S.909 - Hate Crimes Bill
H.R. 1913 passed out of Congress on April 29th and will be heard in the U.S. Senate, now being called S.909. It will allow the federal government to prosecute 2 identical crimes differently if one fictim is a homosexual, cross-dresser or has a different gender confusion disorder.
It's Unconstitutional! The 14th Admendment Guarantees "Equal Protection", NOT "Special Protection".
Christians and pastors in Sweden, England, Canada, and Philadelphia have already been prosecuted under the hate crime laws for expressing disapproval of homosexual behavior and even sharing the Gospel. In some jurisdictions "hate crimes" have been defined as hate speech, intimidations, and verbal assault. This shows contempt for the moral view of millions.
It Infringes on Freedom of Speech and Religion.
Mis California, Carrie Prejean, could have been charged with a "hate crime" for her views on same-sex marriage if S.909 was already law. What couild constitute a "hate crive" under this bill is a homosexual man or woman claiming they were discriminated against and hurt by what was said.
It Punishes Thoughts, NOT Actions.
Congressman Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), a judge, claims no matter what proponents of the bill are saying now, no one can predict how it will be interpreted by future courts.
All criminal actions must be vigorously prosecuted. All victims must be treated equally. The U.S. Senate must reject S.909.
Call Senator Durbin 202-224-2152 and Senator Burris 202-2224-2854.
For more information, go to www.illinoisfamily.org or call IFI at 708-781-9328.
