Tufts was not the first minister to preach to the people of Naticook – as this area was first known. There are indications that at least three ministers preached here in the 1730’s. Nor was Joshua Tufts the townspeople’s first choice for a settled minister. Mr. Josiah Brown and Mr. Isaac Merrill (see Rev. Newhall’s Address) both were extended calls to settle here, but both declined. Maybe they were just not the right men for the times. Maybe Joshua Tufts was. The story goes like this…
Late in 1741, two riders pulled up their mounts in front of the house of the aging Reverend John Tufts of Newbury, Massachusetts. One rider represented the voters of Merrimack, New Hampshire on the west side of the river and the other represented the voters on the east side in Litchfield. The two constituted a committee invested with the authority to treat with the elder Mr. Tufts for permission to extend a call to his son Joshua (recently graduated from Harvard College) to settle as the preacher at the newly erected meetinghouse in Litchfield. (Being slightly fewer in number, the residents of Merrimack were obliged to cross the river on the Sabbath to worship on the Litchfield side – an arrangement, I might add, that was not much to their liking.) Now, you may think it strange that the father’s permission should be solicited in this manner, but in those days, a male child under the age of 21 could not legally work outside the home without it. Even after reaching 21, it was considered a common courtesy to seek a father’s permission to employ his young adult son. The elder Mr. Tufts consented, and the riders returned to Litchfield with the news. Shortly thereafter a second delegation was sent from Litchfield, this time leading an extra horse, upon which the young Mr. Joshua Tufts rode for the return trip up the river. Joshua arrived at the steeple-less meetinghouse, where he was to be examined for his fitness to preach. And what an examination it was! We can well imagine that the young man may have – or perhaps should have – had some serious misgivings about accepting the call. I will explain, but first a little context.
To understand the religious situation in Litchfield in 1741, and the difficulties faced by the congregation and young Mr. Tufts, we must first understand the religious climate in the New England colonies in those days. As you well know, the Plymouth Plantation and Massachusetts Bay colonies were settled for the most part by dissenters from the Church of England. Puritan leaders like the preacher John Cotton, the poet Anne Bradstreet and the politician John Winthrop (by the way both Cotton and Bradstreet were ancestors to Tufts,– his grandmother was Mercy Cotton and his mother was Sarah Bradstreet) in any case, the Puritan leaders believed that they were on an errand from God, to establish a shining “city on a hill” in the New World. Though they never did become the model of Christian charity that some had hoped for, the early New England colonies were brimming with pious Puritan zeal. But generations passed and by 1720 – a hundred years after the first Pilgrims stepped off of the Mayflower – the fires of Puritan passion had cooled considerably and Puritanism had settled into a dull and formal orthodoxy. Then, in 1727 a strong earthquake shook New England and church attendance surged. But anxiety about the impending end of the world soon faded and church attendance resumed its gradual decline. Jonathan Edwards famously described the situation. “… it seemed to be a time of extraordinary dullness in religion,” he wrote.
As the colonies expanded, worldly concerns often trumped heavenly ones. On the New Hampshire frontier which included the town of Litchfield, for example, settlers were not only preoccupied with their crops, or with the harvesting of local timber, but they were greatly concerned about the ongoing boundary dispute between the Massachusetts Bay and New Hampshire colonies and its impact on the validity land titles and consequently their economic survival.
All in all, by the end of the 1730’s the times were ripe for a revival of religion. It was then that itinerant evangelistic preachers began to appear – and they had tremendous appeal. Men like George Whitefield, James Davenport and Gilbert Tennant, drew crowds in the thousands. People flocked into public squares and farmer’s fields to hear them preach their extemporaneous sermons. The messages of these preachers, many of whom were Presbyterian, were highly emotional (“enthusiastic” as their critics called them) and extremely effective. Many of their listeners came under the powerful conviction of their sinfulness and need for a “new birth.” Stories of dramatic conversions, healings and awakenings of faith circulated through every church.
A contemporary account tells it this way:
“In 1739 [there] arrived among us … the Reverend Mr. Whitefield, who had made himself remarkable … as an itinerant preacher. He was at first permitted to preach in some of our churches; but the clergy, taking a dislike to him, soon refused him their pulpits, and he was obliged to preach in the fields. The multitudes of all sects and denominations that attended his sermons were enormous, and it was a matter of speculation to me, who was one of the number, to observe the extraordinary influence of his oratory on his hearers, and how much they admired and respected him, notwithstanding his common abuse of them, by assuring them that they were naturally half beasts and half devils. It was wonderful to see the change soon made in the manners of our inhabitants. From being thoughtless or indifferent about religion, it seemed as if all the world were growing religious, so that one could not walk thro’ the town in an evening without hearing psalms sung in different families of every street.” Benjamin Franklin
Franklin, who was an admirer of Whitefield though never a convert, once conducted an experiment. Starting from the place where Whitefield stood preaching in a field, he walked away from him until he could no longer hear him distinctly. This procedure he repeated in several directions. After careful calculations, he arrived at the conclusion that 30,000 people had heard Whitefield at that one meeting! An incredible claim!
Settled preachers in many churches adopted the energetic style of the traveling evangelists and not a few congregations were stirred from spiritual lethargy to renewed religious passion. But, as Franklin remarked, not all ministers were favorably impressed by what came to be called “The Great Awakening.” When established orthodox ministers – many of them Congregationalists – were directly challenged, accused of being unconverted and of being tools of the devil leading their congregations to hell, they declared war and struck back. Pamphlets and tracts were published denouncing the revivalists as excessively emotional, over-excited and manipulative. James Davenport was literally banned from Boston. Prominent among the counter-revivalists was Charles Chauncy, the “Old Brick,” who launched his counter-attack from the pulpit of the First Congregational Church of Boston. Chauncy and the establishment clergy were known as the “Old Lights” as over against the revivalist “New Lights.” Chauncy’s famous booklet, Seasonable Thoughts on the State of Religion in New England, published in 1743, was a point-by-point refutation of the teachings and perceived excesses of the traveling evangelists. In July that same year a convention of “New Light” ministers gathered in Boston. As a reply to Chauncy, they signed and had published in the newspapers a statement entitled “The Testimony and Advice of the Pastors of the Churches in New England” in which they supported the revivals as a genuine movement of God. We’ll hear more about both Chauncy’s “Seasonable Thoughts” and the rebutting “Testimony and Advice…” in a few minutes.
The first half of the 1740’s was a time not only of turmoil, but often of outright chaos in the churches of New England. From 1740 to 1744 most churches in New England aligned themselves with either the “New Light” revivalists or the “Old Light” traditionalists. The split was about 50/50 with a few congregations attempting to remain neutral – usually without success. Controversy and ill-will abounded. Some congregations split in half. Many congregations tended “New Light” while their pastor tended “Old Light” and vice versa. In those cases, the pastor usually got sacked, or if he managed to stay on, large contingents of the congregation often abandoned him to attend, or even start up, another church more to their liking.
In Londonderry, the newly formed West parish was led by the charismatic “New Light” David MacGregore, and the established East parish was led by “Old Light” William Davidson. The two ministers held each other in tremendous contempt and refused to speak one to the other. The whole town drew up sides and squared off against each other. On every Sabbath “Old Light” residents of the west side of town defiantly marched right past the front door of the West parish meeting house to go clear across town to worship at the “Old Light” East parish. And equally outraged “New Light” residents of the east side streamed past the nearby East parish meeting house to worship with the “New Lights” in the West Parish. According to E.L. Parker’s history of Londonderry, “This unhappy division was productive of evils long felt in the town, not only occasioning alienation of feeling, and often bitter animosities between the members of these two religious societies, but also preventing all ministerial and even social intercourse between the ministers.” This situation was not unique to Londonderry. Such was the state of affairs in many New England towns when the young and inexperienced Joshua Tufts was examined for his fitness to preach in Litchfield.
Here is what we know about the circumstances surrounding the examination. As everywhere, there certainly were in the Litchfield-Merrimack community divisions of opinion along “New Light” and “Old Light” lines. I suspect that most of those on the Merrimack side of the river were “Old Light” Congregationalists while many of those on the Litchfield side were more sympathetic to “New Light” Presbyterianism. It appears, however, that the voters who were to elect their first settled minister wanted to avoid the hostilities that existed in Londonderry and elsewhere, and so were not prepared to declare outright for one side or the other. They certainly didn’t want their newly gathered church to be fractured before it was even established. Accordingly, they insisted that their minister should satisfy both “Old Lights” and “New Lights” as to his fitness. To that end, prior to the examination of young Mr. Tufts, the voters approached two nearby ministers and asked them to help. Would they provide a series of questions that they might put to their prospective pastor? After the candidate responded, the ministers could review his answers and help decide his suitability. They proceeded to solicit a list of examination questions from the Reverend David McGregore, the decidedly “New Light” Presbyterian pastor in the West parish of Londonderry, and from the Reverend Thomas Parker, the staunchly “Old Light” Congregationalist pastor in Dracut. The questions were then put to Mr. Tufts and, astonishingly, the 25 year-old Harvard grad, managed to answer them to the satisfaction of both the “New Light” McGregore, and the “Old Light” Parker.
Based upon his startlingly successful examination, the twenty-six male voters on the east side of the river and the twenty-five on the west, voted to call Joshua Tufts as their pastor. Tufts accepted the call and was ordained on Dec. 9, 1741, and with his new wife, he settled in Litchfield. This was an auspicious beginning to his relationship with the people here, but it was only the beginning.
We don’t know many details of Mr. Tufts’ career in Litchfield. We do know, however, that in 1742 as the publisher was preparing to print Charles Chauncy’s anti-revivalist “Old Light” booklet, “Seasonable Thoughts…” he gathered over 700 advance subscriptions. In those days subscriptions paid in advance were used as a way of underwriting the production of books. Among the subscribers were the Rev. Thomas Parker of Dracut, Tufts’ “Old Light” examiner, and … The Rev. Joshua Tufts of Litchfield. Tufts’ subscription to the work placed him squarely among the “Old Light” anti-revivalists. Less than a year later, in July of 1743, when the Boston convention of “New Light” ministers published their “Testimony and Advice…” supporting revivals, whose names should appear among the signatories, but the Presbyterian revivalist and ordination examiner The David McGregore of Londonderry – and amazingly, the Rev. Joshua Tufts of Litchfield! Tufts blatantly and very publicly contradicted himself. There could only be two reasons for this. Tufts was either entirely muddled, or he was making a deliberate statement.
So what shall we make of all this? Tufts was a brilliant young man, graduating Harvard Phi Beta Kappa and near the top of his class, but there are some anecdotal references by classmates to his unsteadiness and vacillation in his student days. I was at first tempted, therefore, to think that Tufts may have indeed been weak and indecisive. I was also tempted to think that the church set him up for failure by setting him an impossible task. The lesson in that case would be: “he who seeks to please everyone, pleases no one – not even himself.”
But upon reflection, I have come to think more highly of both Tufts and of the church. I believe both he and the congregation, for the good of the whole community, were actually trying to preserve peace by steering a diplomatic middle course between “Old Light” and “New Light” sentiments. I choose to think that the congregation wanted to avoid the kind of division that so disrupted all of life in places like Londonderry. I believe that the people of Litchfield called Tufts to be a peacekeeper – and he tried his best to be just that. His apparent self-contradiction was not a sign that Tufts was too weak or too indecisive to take sides – it was a sign that he deliberately chose not to. And that was itself a definitive stand.
I choose to believe that Tufts was a man who actually saw value in the diverse perspectives of the “Old Light” traditionalists and the “New Light” revivalists. He didn’t choose between them, but instaed chose them both, because in his mind both had merit. Perhaps he genuinely believed in both the value of tradition and the necessity for change. Perhaps he saw that both renewal and continuity had to be embraced. I want to imagine that he saw that people forget their past at their own peril. But I want to believe that he also recognized that it is equally perilous to be so mired in the past that we overlook new possibilities. It may be that Joshua Tufts did the best that could be done for the fledgling church in Litchfield. He saw them through a turbulent time and held them together until the heat of passion died down and the crisis passed. He may have been called to the young church in Litchfield for just such a purpose as that. I think the evidence points that way, but it’s not really possible to know. Still, this address is not just a history lesson, it’s a sermon about the lessons of history – so I hope you will allow my speculations and we’ll all learn what we can. What we do know for certain is that by 1744, the fevered revivals of the “Great Awakening” had run their course, and Joshua Tufts’ pastorate in Litchfield came to an abrupt end. One cryptic record simply says, “He was dismissed in 1744.” Why and whether at his own request or not, we are not told.
]]>According to the article, “At first 10 children came, then 20, then 50. Finally, more than 100 young earthquake victims crowded into the clinic, where crew members of the U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Tahoma were delivering desperately needed medical supplies and assistance late into the night.
“It was one of those days where we didn’t keep count. We treated a bunch of kids. We saved a lot of lives,” said Cmdr. Jim Spotts, commanding officer of the Tahoma, weary but still working with his crew at 9:15 p.m. But, he added, “a lot of older people had to wait.”
According to the article, Jim “brings his own expertise on Haiti. A former Coast Guard intelligence manager who has worked both the northeast and southeast marine borders near Canada and the Caribbean, Spotts from July 2008 until last May served as military liaison to Haiti at the U.S. Embassy in Port-au-Prince — contributing to largest previous relief operations in the region, after four hurricanes smashed Haiti in 2008.
Tuesday’s earthquake, Spotts said, left his former colleagues reeling. At Haiti’s century-old former Admiral Killick naval base, now a Coast Guard station that houses a Sri Lankan battalion and a Uruguayan maritime police unit that are part of the United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti, “only two or three structures” are left standing. It’s been hard,” Spotts said. “Obviously we need medical supplies . . . then food and water, and essentially the rebuilding of the entire city of Port-au-Prince,” Spotts said.”
For more information and an interview with Commander Spotts, you can visit the WMUR TV 9 website.
Please pray for Jim and Bekki, their children Meredith and Ben, and for the crew of the Tahoma and the people of Haiti in these very difficult days.
]]>Let us pray,
God of compassion
Please watch over the people of Haiti,
Surround those who have been affected by this tragedy
with a sense of your ever-present love,
and hold them in faith.
Though they are overwhelmed by grief,
May they find in you some comfort;
Guide us as a church
to find ways of providing assistance
that may heal wounds and give hope.
Help us to remember that when one of your children is injured
we all suffer – Amen.
Beyond our prayers, there are other important ways we can help. Presbyterian Disaster Assistance (PDA) has issued an emergency appeal for Haiti. As I write, the exact number of casualties is still not known, nor is the full extent of the damage; however, reports indicate that tens of thousands – possibly hundreds of thousands – of people are feared dead and countless others have been left homeless.
The following is taken from the Presbyterian Disaster Assistance (PDA) website. “The Haitian infrastructure was already in a fragile state. The earthquake has caused widespread damage of homes and other buildings as well as damage to water, electrical and road systems. Symbols of security such as schools, hospitals and churches have been damaged or destroyed.”
PDA is rushing an initial $100,000 from One Great Hour of Sharing and designated funds to help provide immediate emergency relief to the affected people. Funds are being sent through our ecumenical and local partners working in Haiti.
PC(USA) mission co-worker Carlos Cardenas is joining an ecumenical team through the Action by Churches Together (ACT) Alliance going to Haiti to help with the response and needs assessments.
You can stand in the gap for disaster survivors and help the church in this response.
GIVE. The generous sharing of your financial blessings through the One Great Hour of Sharing offering and special designated giving provide resources needed to assist with immediate and long-term recovery needs.
Individuals may give through your local Presbyterian congregation, on the secure PC(USA) Web site:
https://www.pcusa.org/give/online/projectSelectAction.do?numberString=DR000064
or by sending a check to:
Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)
P.O. Box 643700
Pittsburgh, PA 15264-3700
Please include the special designated giving account DR000064 – Haiti.
ACT. Stay informed and share information on the need with others. Sign up to receive PDA-RIN email notices to alert you of additional needs. Consider making Gift of the Heart hygiene kits. A shipment of hygiene kits is being prepared by Church World Service to send to Haiti. When widespread disasters occur, there is usually a need to replenish the supply to ensure a sufficient quantity for future disaster situations.
]]>