When Johnny Doesn't Come Marching Home....

The recent return of several hundred remains of US service personnel from North Korea is a commendable move for the Communist dictatorship. The return of these remains offers hope to families that have long wondered about the fate of their loved ones. The Korean War has often been referred to as the Forgotten War and many feel that the 8,000 plus servicemen that were designated as MIA have long been forgotten. The Korean War, or more properly Korean Conflict, was a police action carried out under the auspices of the United Nations. There was a lot of confusion among Americans about the purpose and objectives of this conflict. The military combined seasoned veterans with fresh recruits, many of them having been drafted, to face the small North Korean Army. Unfortunately, the North Koreans were augmented by both Chinese and Soviet forces. This was the closest the US came to a full out ground war against the major Communist powers. The conflict ended with an armistice, really just a pause in the fighting, and there was no permanent resolution of the conflict. The American public was even more confused about the end of the war and the missing soldiers and sailors were forgotten. The return of these remains is a positive step in honoring the men and women that sacrificed their all for their nation.

Of course, the several hundred remains are just a drop in the bucket compared with the over 8,000 missing servicemen. A large portion of the missing servicemen will never be reclaimed. This is not only true of the Korean War, but of every other American conflict. There have been MIAs in nearly every American conflict. There were hundreds of thousands of MIAs after the American Civil War. It was the Civil War that eventually led the US military to adopt standardized IDs, i.e. dog tags. Soldiers prior to battle in the American Civil War would pin strips of paper to their clothes with their name and address in case they were killed in battle. The average soldier came to fear being killed and forgotten on the massive fields of carnage. A much smaller number of MIAs were recorded in the Great War, but in the aftermath of that war the practice of recognizing an Unknown Soldier began. The Unknown Soldier, entombed in Washington DC, was the ultimate symbol of the soldier who was not only lost in battle, but the man who also lost his identity in the process. The Tomb of the Unknown Soldier came to represent all MIAs.

Today, the US military strives to identify the remains of all soldiers that are found in former conflict zones. They also work hard to eliminate once and for all the issue of MIAs. New techniques are employed to identify and track current soldiers. It is unlikely that the Tomb of the Unknowns will have a future addition due to these advances in technology. But that does not comfort those whose family members were lost in World War 2, Korea, or Vietnam. More than celebrate the return of remains from North Korea, the American public should take a moment to reflect on those who did sacrifice their lives in service. Memorials and museums dot the country, so it is not difficult to honor the men and women who were lost in defense of the US. Take time to go to places like the Andersonville Prison Museum that honors both POWs and MIAs throughout the history of the US. And let us also show our gratitude to current service personnel and their families as they still put their lives on the line for us all.

.

What Does the Bible Say About the 2017 Eclipse?

What does the Bible say about the 2017 eclipse? Absolutely nothing. In fact, eclipses are never really discussed in the Bible. There are a handful of passages that mention the sun darkening (Amos 8:9; Micah 3:6; Zech. 14:6; Joel 2:10, 3:15; Job 9:7), but they also mention the moon and stars darkening. The context of these passages indicates a supernatural event occurring rather than a natural event. Eclipses are a part of the natural order that God ordained. The reason we see no discussion in the Bible regarding eclipses is because Israel was commanded in the law not to engage in astrology. Deuteronomy 4:19 regards astrology as idolatry. The righteous were to look to God for guidance, not the stars.

Those claiming that the Eclipse is a sign of judgment are engaging in bad hermeneutics (consistent interpretation) as well as Christian astrology (which is an oxymoron). Eclipses happen every year or so. However,  since the majority of the earth is covered in water they do not always cross inhabited areas. The 2017 eclipse happens to cross a wide track of the US for the first time in 99 years. In 2 years it will cross the Pacific Ocean. Does that mean the Pacific Ocean will be under judgment in 2 years? Of course not.

Projected Path of 2019 Solar Eclipse

Some in the media are quick to point out that many traditions regard eclipses as bad omens, but history also shows that they can have positive consequences. In 585 BC, Thales of Miletus accurately predicted an eclipse. This was not the first time this feat was accomplished, but it is the first recorded and verified instance of an eclipse prediction. A remarkable event occurred during that eclipse that helped preserve Thales accomplishment. The Lydians and Medes had been engaged in a long war. On May 28, 585 BC the Medes attacked the Lydians at the Halys River (in modern Turkey). They were engaged in battle when the eclipse transpired. The pagan soldiers were filled with superstitious dread and laid there weapons down. A peace treaty was then brokered because of the eclipse.

Outside of the civilized world an eclipse was a mysterious phenomenon that broke the regular order. Within civilized society an eclipse is part of the natural order and can be predicted with extreme precision. Christians are not supposed to be superstitious and should not react to an eclipse as though they were unenlightened pagans. Appreciate the orderly nature of God's creation and trust in God more than the prophets of doom trying to bank on headlines.

I Got A Letter From Opponents of Religious Liberty and Free Speech

As an election approaches, there are certain things that I expect. I expect debates, constant annoying commercials, increasingly hostile Facebook memes, and tons of junk mail for various candidates. As a pastor I also expect a thinly veiled threat to arrive by mail. The letter is sent out every election season by Americans United for Separation of Church and State. The director of this organization purports to offer a helpful reminder of what churches can and can't do during an election season. Pastors can talk about issues (though he warns voter guides are probably illegal), but we can not endorse a candidate as that would violate the Johnson Amendment. Lyndon Johnson backed an amendment to the tax code that made it illegal for churches and other 501(c)(3) non-profits to endorse or oppose candidates for political office. Pastors can share their personal views as long as they are away from the pulpit and make it clear that it is not the official position of their church. The director of the organization assures me that this is a good thing for democracy.

I would like to personally invite the Americans United for Separation of Church and State to come hear me preach. While I do not endorse any candidates, it might be a good chance for them to actually hear the Gospel. This group is very selective in the churches that they pursue. They fear conservative churches and ignore churches that are in line with their own views. These hypocrites are the enemy of free speech.

At the moment I do not think that it would be a good idea for a pastor to endorse a candidate. It would be a good way of alienating members of different political parties within the congregation and I don't really like any of the current candidates. It would get in the way of real ministry. However, if a candidate arose that preached hate and intolerance against the church, then we would have an obligation to oppose that candidate. If a candidate ran on a platform of anti-Semitism, then we would certainly have an obligation to oppose him or her.

One of the sad chapters in church history occurred in Germany during the 1920s and 30s. Too many godly men stayed quiet while a malevolent force took over. Worse yet, too many supposedly Christian scholars supported the efforts of a violent nationalistic party. They diminished the importance of the Jews to Christian history. They disregarded the Old Testament and they silenced the scholars that opposed them. There were some good godly men who stood up for the truth, but they were too few in number. Because the church was more concerned about nationalism, the majority of Protestants in Germany supported the election of Adolf Hitler. But Americans United misunderstand this lesson from history. There were a minority of good men that did oppose the Nazis and their hate. Americans United would have silenced their prophetic voice just as the Gestapo did.

On the positive side, good godly pastors got involved in the American Civil Rights Movement. Pastors rallied their churches to support community initiatives and candidates that aided their movement. From a Birmingham Jail Cell, Martin Luther King, Jr. called out to white pastors to get involved in a political issue. Unfortunately, too many of those pastors took the position of the Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

The Johnson Amendment is a threat to churches and liberty. Ultimately it places the government in a position to evaluate a pastor's sermon. Of course, the IRS will only look into the matter if someone squeals on a pastor. But that could change overnight. In recent years city governments have demanded copies of sermons for evaluation. Anytime a government agency asks for a sermon to check it against some standard it is a threat to religious liberty and free speech.

The church should be a prophetic voice in American culture. We should speak the word of God regardless of the consequences. Americans United for Separation of Church and State is on the forefront of those seeking to silence the church in America and will ultimately stand in judgment before the Lord. Christians must not be silent. We must proclaim the Gospel even when the state comes after us. We must not take our religious liberty and free speech for granted. We should use it while we can, before Americans United and their allies silence us for good.

Does the Supreme Court Gambit trump the NeverTrump Conservatives?

It is not news that many conservatives are reluctant to support Donald Trump for president. There are many neverTrump conservatives that will under no circumstance support a man that is neither conservative nor civil for the office of president. There are many conservatives that are ardently in support of Trump, though they claim to see his flaws. Often their argument follows one of two vectors: choose the lesser of two evils or choose Trump because of the Supreme Court. At this time I will address the second vector: the Supreme Court nomination gambit. 

According to Trump supporters, we must back Trump because he has promised to choose conservative Justices. There is currently one vacancy on the Supreme Court and it is likely that the next president will have to replace at least one, if not two, more justices. If Clinton is elected she will place the most liberal judges on the Court and doom our society to an ever increasing descent into socialism, lawlessness, and chaos. The fact that the Senate has to confirm any nominations is totally left out of the debate, though the Senate has been fairly weak on this point in recent years. Trump's pick of the conservative Justices is the only hope to end abortion, repeal Obamacare, outlaw gay marriage, protect religious liberty, and ensure the American way of life. 

There are several problems with this line of thought. First, do you really trust Trump to follow through? Campaign promises are as legitimate as three dollar bills. Trump's track record does not portray an honest individual and even Trump supporters have to admit that his character is questionable. There is no guarantee that he will honor his promise on the Judges. In fact, if he feels that conservatives have betrayed him he may well counterpunch with a liberal nomination to punish the perceived insult. Second, Trump doesn't understand the conservative perspective and can only guess as to what a conservative Justice looks like. He may have help in picking a conservative judge, but he is not surrounding himself with conservatives. He has clearly stated that it is the Republican party, not the conservative party (and the Republican convention has endorsed this statement). The neverTrump conservatives never trusted him in the first place, so why would they trust him on this pivotal point?

However, there is a more fundamental issue at stake with this argument that betrays a less than conservative approach to government. The Supreme Court has grown into the final arbiter of all legal and moral issues. If the Supreme Court says it, it is a settled issue. If Congress can't agree on an issue, they will let the court decide the matter. Certain Republican Senators did not want to attempt any repeal of the Health Care Act because they feared it would hurt them in an election. Instead, they wanted the Supreme Court to deal with it. The Supreme Court, though, did not rule as they wanted. And since the Court has ruled, many view it as a done deal. This is not how the Founders intended the Court to work. Laws are supposed to be established by the Congress. The only time the Supreme Court should enter the process is if there is the possibility that a law has violated the Constitution. However, the Supreme Court has become a second avenue for the losing side in contentious legislation. The minority in Congress may not be able to stop or pass a bill, but they can try to forward their agenda through a Supreme Court case. If the Congress properly executes its responsibilities and obligations, then the Supreme Court should have little or no involvement in the establishment of legislation. 

Unfortunately, many conservatives have forgotten this fundamental principle and desire to use the Supreme Court when they can't advance their agenda through Congress. Placing this much trust in the Court is neither conservative nor wise. The Court doesn't always get things right. When a law is ruled unconstitutional, Congress should immediately revisit that law to fix their errors, but they should not accept any attempt to thwart their Constitutional duty through the Court. 

I understand the allure of relying on the Court. With the right case and right Justices, we could overturn Roe v. Wade and end abortion without having to pass a contentious law. That simply won't work. I am opposed to abortion, but relying on the courts has never worked in favor of life and never will. Our focus should be changing the moral views of our society to the point that the demand for abortion becomes a rarity. That is hard work and at times appears impossible, but shortcuts have never worked in the moral landscape of America. Additionally, Republican presidents have appointed judges that were supposedly conservative, but those Justices have turned about to be more moderate than anticipated. The appointment of Supreme Court justices is always a wild card and you never really know how they are going to vote until they actually vote. 

To sum it all up: placing all our hope in the Supreme Court is neither conservative nor wise, even if we could trust Trump to choose a Justice. 

Heritage?

Icons and symbols are important components in the identity of a culture or society. Unfortunately, the cherished symbol of one community may be a hated symbol to a neighboring people group. Such clashes arise time to time in the South over the icons of the Southern Secession. African Americans are incensed at the lingering appearance of an icon that represents centuries of chattel slavery and a century of oppression under the banner of Jim Crowe. At the same time these symbols are integral to the identity of many White Southerners. Often the debate is framed in terms of heritage versus hate.

However, to frame the debate as heritage versus hate is often problematic and even disingenuous. As a native of Georgia, I am sympathetic to claims of heritage. I grew up in the shadow of Kennesaw Mountain, and my grandfather was from Andersonville, Georgia. I have visited forts and battlefields across the Old South, but I am also an avid amateur historian. Historians, both professional and amateur, try to sort out reality from Hollywood. We enjoy exploring the complexities of events and arguing over the assessments of those events. Above all, we relish the details.

Often the details are the first casualty in public debates. A populist understanding of the Civil War is reflected in Gone with the Wind. One of my history professors, an actual Civil War historian, appraised the movie correct in that there was a Civil War and Atlanta did burn, but the rest was nonsense. The Civil War was a complex event that should not be caricatured into simplistic bumper sticker slogans. That is a topic for another day. 

Many who claim to be supporting the heritage of the South cannot distinguish between the actual tenets of the Confederacy and the myths of the Lost Cause. Worse yet, they mix the Lost Cause with the defenders of segregation. 

For example, let's look at the Confederate Battle Flag and remember that details matter. It is not uncommon to see a large Confederate banner flying from the back of an oversized pickup truck with bumper stickers warning not to disrespect the "Stars and Bars." However, the banner flown is not the Stars and Bars and technically is not even a Confederate flag. Details matter especially with flags. The Stars and Bars was the first official flag of the CSA and resembles the Stars and Stripes.

First National Confederate Flag - The Stars and Bars

The resemblance was too close and caused a few incidents of friendly fire in the early days of the war. It was replaced by the Stainless Banner, but it still lives on in places like the current flag of the state of Georgia. 

Second National Confederate Flag - The Stainless Banner

Third National Confederate Flag - The Blood Dipped Banner

The Confederate Battle Flag is a square flag like a naval ensign with the Saint Andrews Cross like the flag of Scotland. As a large portion of the Southern army had Scottish roots, the battle flag soared in popularity. It was incorporated into the 2nd and 3rd Confederate national flags. While it is possible that individual units may have adopted some banner similar to the Southern Cross, the general order authorizing the battle flag was specific as to the dimensions and color of the flag.


The banner with the Southern Cross was created as the symbol of the Segregated South and as a general sign of rebellion.  Harley Davidson incorporated the Southern Cross into their merchandise as a symbol of the rebellious spirit until they succumbed to the pressure of PC concerns. But the Southern Cross banner symbolized segregation and was one of the banners of the Ku Klux Klan. 

The symbols of the CSA are still an integral part of the Southern identity. We should not bury them because they are history. However, we must be careful about context and details. Those who wish to promote their Southern heritage must be careful as to which heritage they are promoting. Though I don't fly a Confederate Flag, if I did I would fly one of the national banners or more likely the unit flag of my Great great grandfather (still researching his unit. If anyone knows the banner of the 1st City Battalion Columbus, Georgia, please send it to me). If you're not sure about which flag you are flying and why, then perhaps you need to study your history and heritage a little more.

A Forgotten Tragedy: The S.S. Sultana

On this day in 1865, the worst maritime disaster in US history occurred. It had nothing to do with the Titanic. The Titanic was a British cruise ship that sank on April 14, 1912, resulting in the death of approximately 1517 people. The loss of the Titanic was a tragedy, but it is far from the worst maritime disaster. The sinking of the Wilhelm Gustloff on January 30, 1944 is the worst single ship maritime disaster with approximately 9400 deaths. Few people have heard of the Wilhelm Gustloff, while the whole world knows the Titanic. There is a certain romance and grandeur that has long been associated with the Titanic. The first feature movie about the Titanic was made by order of Joseph Goebbels to demonstrate the greed and corruption of capitalist nations such as Britain and the United States. The majority of movies about the Titanic focus on the contrast between the immense luxury of the ship with its tragic demise. There were many celebrities aboard the Titanic and that also captured the attention of the public.

The worse US maritime disaster, though, is known only to historians. In fact, even when the tragedy occurred it garnered little attention from the press. In April 1865 the Civil War was coming to an end. Lee had surrendered, but Lincoln had been assassinated. There were still Confederate armies that had not surrendered and Union troops were still deployed in the field. However, the Eastern theaters were winding down and many Union troops were being sent home. There were also several thousands of liberated prisoners of war that were being sent home. The primary method of returning these men to the North was up the Mississippi River. Steamboats were chartered by the US government to ferry men from New Orleans, Vicksburg, Memphis, and other Southern cities north to Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois. This became a lucrative business for the owners of ships on the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers. The owners of these vessels were paid according to the number of men ferried by their vessels and they wanted to make as much money as possible. To that end they packed their vessels with Union troops as well as with family members that were escorting the troops home.

One ship, the S.S. Sultana, was certified for a maximum capacity of 376 passengers. On April 24, 1865, she left Vicksburg with over 2100 men aboard. Most of the men were former prisoners of war and many were from the notorious Andersonville Prison Camp. They were tired and weak, but they wanted to get home. They were willing to endure the cramped quarters in order to hasten their journey home. After stopping at Memphis on April 26 to unload her cargo of sugar, the Sultana left port at midnight heading north.

At 2:00 AM, seven miles north of Memphis, Tennessee, one of the boilers on the Sultana exploded. The initial explosion was followed by two more boilers exploding. Later investigations determined that the strain of carrying an over loaded vessel against strong currents overwhelmed substandard boilers. The explosion instantly killed hundreds and hundreds were also thrown through the air. Survivors had to deal with clouds of steam, a raging fire, and an unforgiving river. The Mississippi River was swollen due to spring rains and even a strong man could not withstand the merciless currents. About 700 survivors were taken to Memphis, but around 500 died due to burns and hypothermia. The official death toll for the disaster is that 1,800. For several months bodies washed up all along the shores of the Mississippi River. It was a tragic end for many soldiers that had survived the horror of war.

The sinking of the Sultana is the worst maritime disaster in US history. However, no one was ever held accountable for the disaster. The crew of the ship were killed in the disaster. The US Army conducted inquiries, but even those found guilty of bribery or negligence were later acquitted. The story was reported in the media, but it was not the main headline. On April 26, John Wilkes Booth had been found and killed by Union troops. The focus of the nation was still on the assassination of Lincoln and the manhunt for the conspirators. Today the Sultana is at best a footnote in history books.

The story of the S.S. Sultana is certainly a cautionary tale. It is a story of greed overwhelming common sense. It also demonstrates the strange nature of history in that such a substantial event can be largely forgotten by the public.

The Wrong Side of Hermeneutics

A common rhetorical weapon used today is to claim that a position is "on the wrong side of history." For example, if a Conservative Evangelical asserts that a particular act or belief is counter to the Bible, opponents will claim that he is on the wrong side of history. The model for this claim is that Conservative Evangelicals formerly supported slavery and segregation. Those positions are rejected today by almost everyone and Conservatives are frequently apologizing for the errant positions of their ancestors. But this model is actual deficient and takes a myopic approach to history.
First, only historians can assess when a position is on the wrong side of history. History is a study of past events, people, and concepts. By definition, it is impossible to assess current events as though they were history. Historians are not neutral arbiters of the past, but they do have access to the wider range of events that include the conclusion, impact, and legacy of events. During the 18th and 19th Centuries, colonialism seemed a prudent and beneficial concept to the major world powers. Historians have argued that proponents of colonialism were on the wrong side of history because they see the record of destruction and disaster created by colonialism.
Second, many modern pundits seem to regard the church's position on slavery and segregation to be uniform. The church was far from uniform on such matters. The church drove the abolitionist movement in Great Britain and the United States. Early in church history many believers began to realize that Christianity and slavery were in opposition. How can one both enslave and love one's neighbor? Christian leaders from Patrick to John Newton to John Woolman raised their voices against slavery.
There were Christians who argued that the Bible justified slavery. There were also humanists that argued science justified slavery. Their main concern was to justify slavery because their culture accepted it. In other words, it was neither the Bible nor science that drove their position, but it was their culture that dominated their view.
Hermeneutics is the art and science of interpretation. Good practitioners of Biblical Hermeneutics seek to interpret the Bible without being influenced by their cultural biases. The goal is to determine the original intent and point of the Biblical authors and communicate those truths to their contemporaries. Supporters of slavery in the antebellum South failed to understand the differences between the chattel slavery of their day and the slavery of the Greco-Roman world. Further, they failed to see how the New Testament undermined that slavery. They were not on the wrong side of history; they were on the wrong side of hermeneutics. They saw the Bible through the filter of their culture.
The danger remains for us today. When we read the Bible through the filter of our culture, we will also be on the wrong side of hermeneutics. Any interpretation of the Bible that does not challenge culture is suspect. Our task as believers is not to force the Bible to match the current culture, but to allow the truth to challenge and confront the sins of our culture. My concern has nothing to do with how history will judge my beliefs, but if my hermeneutic is consistent and faithful to the God that gave us the Bible.