Finally, presidents have exhorted Americans to individually and collectively give thanks to God. Wilson counseled citizens “to render thanks to God” in their homes and places of worship on Thanksgiving Day. George W. Bush encouraged “Americans to gather in their homes, places of worship, and community centers” to pray and “reinforce ties of family and community.”

Responding to a request from Congress, President George Washington issued our nation’s first Thanksgiving proclamation in 1789. Only in the midst of the crucible of civil war, however, did presidential proclamations of Thanksgiving become customary. Every year since 1863 our chief executives have urged Americans to recognize God’s bounty and blessings on the fourth Thursday in November.
Several themes loom large in presidential Thanksgiving proclamations: the historical foundation of the event; God’s sovereignty and goodness; the many blessings God has bestowed on America; the importance of national and individual repentance; a challenge to share our copious blessings with other nations and the less fortunate at home; a call to honor the sacrifices of those, especially members of the Armed Forces, who have helped make American prosperous and powerful; and an exhortation to express our gratitude to God individually and collectively.
Numerous presidents have described America’s first Thanksgiving. Most have identified it as the feast the Pilgrims and Wampanoag Indians shared in Plymouth in 1621. Barack Obama, for example, declared in 2014 that “the friendship and kindness of the Wampanoag people” helped the Pilgrims learn “to harvest the rich bounty of a new world.” Some presidents, including John F. Kennedy, pointed to early 17th century events in both Massachusetts and Virginia as providing the foundation for Thanksgiving. In 1984, Ronald Reagan, by contrast, highlighted Iroquois thanksgiving festivals that predated those of Euro-Americans as the basis of the holiday.
Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and most other presidents have accentuated God’s power, providence, and generosity in their proclamations. Washington praised “the great Lord and Ruler of Nations,” acknowledged “the providence of Almighty God,” and thanked God for “His kind care and protection.” Lincoln emphasized “the ever-watchful providence of Almighty God.” Woodrow Wilson rejoiced in 1918 that “God, the ruler of nations,” had brought an end to World War I.
In their Thanksgiving statements, presidents have also consistently expressed gratitude to God for His countless blessings. Washington established the pattern by thanking “the beneficent author of all … good” for the successful conclusion of the Revolutionary War and the new nation’s “tranquility, union, and plenty,” peaceful relations with other countries, recently adopted Constitution, and religious and civil liberty. In 1865 Andrew Johnson rejoiced that God had removed “the fearful scourge of civil war” and permitted Americans to enjoy “the blessings of peace, unity, and harmony.” Harry Truman urged citizens in 1945 to thank “Almighty Providence” for America’s “abundance, strength, and achievement” evident in its defeat of “German fascism and Japanese militarism.” In 2003, George W. Bush praised God for America’s “abundance, prosperity, and hope” and its “firm foundation of freedom, justice, and equality” and “belief in democracy and the rule of law.”
In addition, presidents have called for corporate and individual repentance. Washington beseeched God “to pardon our national and other transgressions.” Lincoln urged Americans to bow before God in “humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience.” Andrew Johnson urged citizens to confess their “national sins” against God’s “infinite goodness.” Wilson exhorted Americans to seek “divine mercy and forgiveness for all [our] errors of act or purpose.”
Presidents have also used their proclamations to ask God to bless other countries and to prod citizens to generously aid others. Washington beseeched God to “protect and guide” all nations and “to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord.” Kennedy implored Americans to share their blessings and ideals with people around the world. Reagan exhorted citizens to model God’s “compassion for those in need” by sharing “our bounty with those less fortunate.” George H. W. Bush urged Americans to aid the unemployed, homeless, hungry, sick, and lonely. Obama challenged citizens to fulfill their role as their “brother’s and … sister’s keepers” by working at homeless shelters and soup kitchens.
In their proclamations, our chief executives have accentuated the sacrifices many American have made to protect and strengthen our nation. Let us “rededicate ourselves to those high principles of citizenship,” Truman declared in 1945, “for which so many splendid Americans have recently given all.” “Throughout history,” George W. Bush asserted, “many have sacrificed to preserve our freedoms and to defend peace around the world.” Obama paid tribute “all those who defend our Union as members of our Armed Forces.”
Finally, presidents have exhorted Americans to individually and collectively give thanks to God. Wilson counseled citizens “to render thanks to God” in their homes and places of worship on Thanksgiving Day. George W. Bush encouraged “Americans to gather in their homes, places of worship, and community centers” to pray and “reinforce ties of family and community.”
As our presidents remind us, America has been abundantly blessed. Jesus declared that “to whom much is given, of him much shall be required” (Luke 12:48). May remembering this make us truly thankful and prompt us to aid the needy and vulnerable.
Dr. Gary Scott Smith chairs the history department at Grove City College and is a fellow for faith and politics with The Center for Vision & Values. He is the author of “Religion in the Oval Office” (Oxford University Press, 2015), “Faith and the Presidency From George Washington to George W. Bush” (Oxford University Press, 2009), “Religion in the Oval Office” and “Heaven in the American Imagination” (Oxford University Press, 2011). Used with permission.

I believe that the greatest need the OPC has right now is not another committee, but rather men in leadership and members in our churches who are committed to true and decided piety. This stands as the chief necessity for the eldership and the Christian life (1 Timothy 3:2, 1 Peter 1:16). John Calvin provided this definition: “By piety, I mean a reverence for God arising from a knowledge of His benefits” (Institutes, I.2.1).

As the 88th General Assembly of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church convenes in the coming days, one of the items on the agenda is Overture 2 from the Presbytery of Ohio. This overture proposes that the Assembly take three principal actions: 1) form a committee of seven to study abuse and report back to the 89th Assembly, possibly with recommendations; 2) authorize the committee to “invite Christians knowledgeable on the topic of abuse to assist the Committee as non-voting consultants;” and 3) fund the committee with a budget of $15,000. In this article, I will seek to highlight some relevant history behind this overture, discuss its grounds, circle back to the actions being proposed, and conclude with some loosely related reflections.
History
This article provides some important details about last summer’s Assembly which are closely related to Overture 2. Last year a commissioner made the following motion:
“That the General Assembly determine to:

Resolve more effectively to minister to victims of abuse in the church by retaining the services of G.R.A.C.E. (Godly Response to Abuse in the Christian Environment) to conduct an organizational assessment of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, and authorize the Stated Clerk to execute the agreement necessary to effect this relationship, with a budget of $50,000.
Form a special committee of five, to be appointed by the moderator, with a budget of $1000 to:

Assist G.R.A.C.E. in their work, upon their request.
Receive and review, in consultation with select members of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, G.R.A.C.E.’s reports and recommendations.
Present G.R.A.C.E.’s reports and recommendations to the 88th General Assembly.
Propose to the 88th General Assembly such other recommendations related to G.R.A.C.E.’s findings as may serve the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.”

After debate, the Assembly ruled a related substitute motion out of order, though sixteen commissioners requested that their positive votes be recorded in the minutes. While last summer’s motion differs significantly from Overture 2, the connection is obvious.
Grounds
The overture provides four grounds (i.e., rationale) for the proposed committee, all of which I am eager to hear explained during the presentation at the Assembly.
Ground 1 provides what appears to be the overture’s working definition of abuse: “misuse of power of various kinds (commonly termed ‘abuse’).” I briefly discussed the deficiency of this definition here. The overture states that both allegations and instances of abuse “raise complex legal, theological, and pastoral issues we cannot minimize, ignore, or dismiss.” While this is true, notice that the end of this sentence is framed negatively. In other words, we cannot do nothing. However, that begs the question of not only what the church ought to do, but how she ought to do it. This is the critical point. It appears that Ground 3 more positively addresses how the church ought to respond to allegations and instances of sin.
Ground 2 attempts to lay an exegetical and confessional foundation for the overture’s aim. Careful interaction with each passage will relegate this article to the bin of TLDR,[1] so here are two comments. First, I am very interested to hear the explanation for these passages. While some apparently support the thrust of the overture, others are rather puzzling (like Exodus 21:15). Second, it is interesting that among the references to the Westminster Larger Catechism (WLC 135, 139, 151), the fifth commandment receives no mention, especially WLC 130.[2]
Ground 3 properly assigns responsibility for dealing righteously with “such sinful behavior” to the elders of Christ’s church, citing the OPC’s Book of Discipline I.3.[3] The antecedent to “such” seems to be “sins of abuse” mentioned in Ground 2. No minister or elder who loves Christ and has sincerely vowed to serve in His Church will ever deny that we must deal with sin, including sins aggravated by abuse. Nevertheless, as I pointed out in a previous article, we must be clear regarding the standard by which elders measure offenses and the purposes for which elders address them. The Book of Discipline rightly states that the standard is the Word of God. The purposes are to honor Christ, purify the church, and reclaim the offenders. We must also remember that our sin is first and foremost an affront to the holy God (Psalm 51:4), and secondly against our neighbors (Matthew 22:34-40). Commissioners to the Assembly need to ensure that we do not make decisions because “the world is watching” (as I have so commonly heard), or while being unduly influenced by secular psychology. We must act in accord with the Word of God and with the mind of Christ (1 Corinthians 2:16).[4]
Ground 4 is worth quoting entirely: “Giving careful study to the complexities and consequences of abuse will help us recognize and remedy gaps in our theology and practice in order that we might more effectively minister to victims of abuse with the hope and consolation of the gospel and more readily confront perpetrators of abuse with the need for repentance and faith in Jesus Christ.” While this statement sounds humble, it carries the potential of a dangerous and subtle concession. Here is a critical question: what do the authors of this overture mean, not so much by gaps in practice, but by gaps in our theology? Certainly Westminster Confession of Faith I.6 is relevant to this question, “The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture.” This confessional statement rests upon the inspired Word which says, “His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue” (2 Peter 1:3). Are the alleged gaps subjective (i.e., deficiencies in elders) or are they objective (i.e., deficiencies in our system of theology itself)? This deserves close scrutiny and careful explanation. That we ought always to strive to be effective, Christlike ministers and elders is not in question. We must minister the balm of Gilead to those who have suffered much at the hands of others (Jeremiah 8:22). The key issue is how the committee—if established—would recommend the OPC do so, especially if it recommends changes to the church’s tertiary standards.
Proposed Actions
Could this committee honor Jesus Christ, help the OPC, her members, the broader church, and even our world? Or could it be a hindrance? That will depend upon the men who serve on the committee. If approved, it must be populated by men resolutely committed to the sufficiency of the Word of God and the gospel of free grace in Jesus Christ. They must be unwaveringly committed to Reformed doctrine, piety, and ecclesiology. They must not be spastic, reflexive, or therapeutic, but biblical, analytical, and pastoral. They must not seek to subject the OPC to a governmental substructure like what is happening in the SBC.
The other critical element for this committee—if appointed—is who they would invite to be “non-voting consultants.” The qualifier in this overture is that invitees must be “Christians knowledgeable on the topic of abuse.” That strikes me as an exceedingly broad proviso, especially considering last year’s attempt to hire G.R.A.C.E. How will the committee measure the quality of their knowledge?[5] Will it be required that these Christians hold reformed convictions? The kind of people invited will certainly be determined by the convictions of the men elected to the committee.
I do not know whether the Assembly will pass this overture, so with Proverbs 18:13 in mind, here is my preliminary perspective: a committee like this could be helpful only if it can provide biblical, wise, and godly helps for the church. If not, it could very well lead to disaster.
Concluding Reflections
I believe that the greatest need the OPC has right now is not another committee, but rather men in leadership and members in our churches who are committed to true and decided piety. This stands as the chief necessity for the eldership and the Christian life (1 Timothy 3:2, 1 Peter 1:16). John Calvin provided this definition: “By piety, I mean a reverence for God arising from a knowledge of His benefits” (Institutes, I.2.1).
Here are some sober reflections for myself and all my fellow elders, not only in the OPC, but throughout the broader church. Anemic preaching, neglect of shepherding and discipline, a habit of non-evangelism, departure from the prescribed means of grace, prayerlessness, ministerial pride, and other things contribute massively not only to problems in the church, but in the world. Preaching that does not engage the heart creates a “Christianity” that neither honors Christ nor affects the world. A church without ardent love and earnest holiness will soon be without a lampstand (Revelation 2:5). A nation without the light and salt of Christ’s witnesses will soon find itself spiraling into the darkness of His judgment (Matthew 5:13-16). Remember that judgment begins at the household of God (1 Peter 4:7).
Fellow elders, we must be men who can look at the members of our flocks, with sincerity in our eyes and integrity in our hearts, and say, “Imitate me, as I imitate Christ” (1 Corinthians 11:1). We must be able to open our homes in biblical hospitality without fear of being “found out” (1 Timothy 3:2-7). We must shepherd faithfully, gently and tenderly binding up the wounds of the broken (Ezekiel 34:1-4). We must guard both our hearts and the sheep entrusted to us (Acts 20:28). Piety displayed exclusively in public is no piety; that is hypocrisy. Earnestness conjured up during public exhortation is not true zeal; it is merely heat with no true light. Our greatest need is for God to bring true revival of piety into the church through an outpouring of His Spirit and the preaching of His Word. This will change the church—and the world.
Mike Myers is a Minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and is Pastor of Heritage OPC in Royston, Ga.  This article is used with permission.

[1] Too long, didn’t read.
[2] Q. 130. What are the sins of superiors? A. The sins of superiors are, besides the neglect of the duties required of them, an inordinate seeking of themselves, their own glory, ease, profit, or pleasure; commanding things unlawful, or not in the power of inferiors to perform; counseling, encouraging, or favoring them in that which is evil; dissuading, discouraging, or discountenancing them in that which is good; correcting them unduly; careless exposing, or leaving them to wrong, temptation, and danger; provoking them to wrath; or any way dishonoring themselves, or lessening their authority, by an unjust, indiscreet, rigorous, or remiss behavior.
[3] BD I.3 – Judicial discipline is concerned with the prevention and correction of offenses, an offense being defined as anything in the doctrine or practice of a member of the church which is contrary to the Word of God. The purpose of judicial discipline is to vindicate the honor of Christ, to promote the purity of his church, and to reclaim the offender.
[4] Francis Schaeffer wrote this caution in 1994 in The Church at the End of the 20th Century, “Beware, therefore, of the movement to give the scientific community the right to rule. They are not neutral in the old concept of scientific objectivity. Objectivity is a myth that will not hold simply because these men have no basis for it. Keep in mind that to these men, morals are only a set of averages. Here, then, is a present form of manipulation which we can expect to get greater as one of the elites takes more power.”
[5] One concern I have is the broad and uncritical acceptance of intersectionality and standpoint epistemology. Intersectionality refers to the concept that “someone who belongs to more than one oppressed or marginalized group…experiences such oppression or marginalization in a particularly intensified way thanks to the ‘intersection’ of those social forces” (Scott David Allen, Why Social Justice is Not Biblical Justice, 66). This idea gives rise to standpoint epistemology, which means “one’s social position relative to systemic power confers additional insight or access to knowledge(s) that allows the oppressed to understand both oppression and the society or systems it operates within better than the privileged are able to so” (James Lindsay, New Discourses, emphasis mine). At root, both concepts are postmodern ideologies that undermine biblical objectivity of truth and knowledge.
Related Posts:

It is understandable for the authors to only briefly mention these miraculous events as they point towards, support, and otherwise affirm and magnify the singular person of which each of the gospels is about—Jesus. 

One of the strangest few verses in all of the Bible, describes the circumstances around the death of Christ. Matthew, in the midst of a relatively unbroken flow of narrative on the crucifixion of Jesus, interrupts the flow to describe the after-effects of Jesus’ death.
 And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit. 
51 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split 52 and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53 They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people.(NIV Matthew 27:50-53)
There is quite a lot here to unpack, but there is (maybe somewhat surprisingly) very little detail given. I’ve preached on the resurrection power of Jesus in the past, but have not preached on these few verses specifically. The power of the resurrection is often thought of in terms of spiritual power, or in terms of life-giving power. While these are all aspects of the power of the resurrection that are rightly thought of, the first effect of the death of Jesus that the gospel of Matthew brings up is the tremendous visible signs which accompanied that moment.
Below are a few terrific Christian thinkers, theologians, martyrs, and commenters on this passage. At the end I’ll add a few of my own comments.
“Verse 52. And the graves were opened. Graves, or sepulchers, were most commonly made, among the Jews, in solid rocks, or in caves of rocks. The rending of the rocks, therefore, would lay them open. The graves were opened by this earthquake, but the dead in them did not rise till after his resurrection.
And many bodies of the saints—arose. Of course, it is not known who these were, nor what became of them. It is probable that they were persons who had recently died, and they appear to have been known in Jerusalem. At least, had the ancient saints risen, they would not have been known, and would not so soon have been credited as those who had recently died.
Which slept. Which had died. The death of saints is often called sleep, Da 12:2; 1 Co 15:18; 1 Th 4:15.”
Albert Barnes
The graves were opened. This matter is not related so fully as our curiosity would wish; for the scripture was not intended to gratify that; it should seem, that same earthquake that rent the rocks, opened the graves, and many bodies of saints which slept, arose. Death to the saints is but the sleep of the body, and the grave the bed it sleeps in; they awoke by the power of the Lord Jesus, and (v. 53) came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into Jerusalem, the holy city, and appeared unto many. Now here
(1.) We may raise many enquiries concerning it, which we cannot resolve: as, [1.] Who these saints were, that did arise. Some think, the ancient patriarchs, that were in such care to be buried in the land of Canaan, perhaps in the believing foresight of the advantage of this early resurrection. Christ had lately proved the doctrine of the resurrection from the instance of the patriarchs (ch. xxii. 32), and here was a speedy confirmation of his argument. Others think, these that arose were modern saints, such as had been Christ in the flesh, but died before him; as his father Joseph, Zecharias, Simeon, John Baptist, and others, that had been known to the disciples, while they lived, and therefore were the fitter to be witnesses to them in an apparition after. What if we should suppose that they were the martyrs, who in the Old-Testament times had sealed the truths of God with their blood, that were thus dignified and distinguished? Christ particularly points at them as his forerunners, ch. xxiii. 35. And we find (Rev. xx. 4, 5), that those who were beheaded for the testimony of Jesus, arose before the rest of the dead. Sufferers with Christ shall first reign with him. [2.] It is uncertain whether (as some think) they arose to life, now at the death of Christ, and disposed of themselves elsewhere, but did not go into the city till after his resurrection; or whether (as others think), though their sepulchres (which the Pharisees had built and varnished, ch. xxiii. 29), and so made remarkable, were shattered now by the earthquake (so little did God regard that hypocritical respect), yet they did not revive and rise till after the resurrection; only, for brevity-sake, it is mentioned here, upon the mention of the opening of the graves, which seems more probable. [3.] Some think that they arose only to bear witness of Christ’s resurrection to those to whom they appeared, and, having finished their testimony, retired to their graves again. But it is more agreeable, both to Christ’s honour and theirs, to suppose, though we cannot prove, that they arose as Christ did, to die no more, and therefore ascended with him to glory. Surely on them who did partake of his first resurrection, a second death had no power. [4.] To whom they appeared (not to all the people it is certain, but to many), whether enemies or friends, in what manner they appeared, how often, what they said and did, and how they disappeared, are secret things which belong not to us; we must not covet to be wise above what is written. The relating of this matter so briefly, is a plain intimation to us, that we must not look that way for a confirmation of our faith; we have a more sure word of prophecy.
(2.) Yet we may learn many good lessons from it. [1.] That even those who lived and died before the death and resurrection of Christ, had saving benefit thereby, as well as those who have lived since; for he was the same yesterday that he is to-day, and will be for ever, Heb. xiii. 8. [2.] That Jesus Christ, by dying, conquered, disarmed, and disabled, death. These saints that arose, were the present trophies of the victory of Christ’s cross over the powers of death, which he thus made a show of openly. Having by death destroyed him that had the power of death, he thus led captivity captive, and gloried in these re-taken prizes, in them fulfilling that scripture, I will ransom them from the power of the grave. [3.] That, in virtue of Christ’s resurrection, the bodies of all the saints shall, in the fulness of time, rise again. This was an earnest of the general resurrection at the last day, when all that are in the graves shall hear the voice of the Son of God. And perhaps Jerusalem is therefore called here the holy city, because the saints, at the general resurrection, shall enter into the new Jerusalem; which will be indeed what the other was in name and type only, the holy city, Rev. xxi. 2. [4.] That all the saints do, by the influence of Christ’s death, and in conformity to it, rise from the death of sin to the life of righteousness. They are raised up with him to a divine and spiritual life; they go into the holy city, become citizens of it, have their conversation in it, and appear to many, as persons not of this world.
Read More
Related Posts: