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.

Happy Saint Patrick's Day!!! An Immigrant Holiday!

Happy Saint Patrick's Day! In past years, I have written about the religious nature of Saint Patrick's Day. Patrick was a remarkable missionary and a hero of the Christian faith. There are many blogs today celebrating that aspect of the day.

There is another aspect of Saint Patrick's Day that I will tackle today. Saint Patrick's Day is largely an immigrants holiday. I saw an interview with Paddy Moloney of the Chieftains saying how he preferred to spend Saint Patrick's Day in the US. In Ireland, it was largely a religious holiday. In the US, Saint Patrick's Day is a party. In the US, Saint Patrick's Day is more a celebration of Irish heritage than it is about the saint. It demonstrates the impact that a group of immigrants can have on a culture and a nation.

Irishmen were among the first colonists in the New World. They came to the New World in various employs of the British government and venture corporations. Later, Irishmen came to America to escape the oppressive and difficult life of Ireland. Ireland was ruled by a landed gentry that was British or appointed by the crown. The aristocracy of Ireland was thoroughly loyal to the crown and far removed from the majority of the Emerald Isle. The disparities became blatantly obvious when the primary food crop for the poor was destroyed.

Around 1845, the potato crop of Ireland was destroyed by blight. A large portion of the poor in Ireland relied upon the potato. To make matters worse, Ireland experienced a severe winter in 1846-47 that exacerbated the problem. The resulting famine added to the many points of conflict between the Upper and Lower classes. The lower class was mostly composed of Catholics that faced discrimination under British law. They were not fairly represented in Parliament. And while the poor starved in the streets, the wealthy ate sumptuously. There were other food crops in Ireland, but they were most exported to the foreign markets and overseas British colonies. The overall result was that over a million Irish died of malnutrition over a ten year period. Another million left Ireland to settle in the US, Australia, and other friendly nations. The disparities and injustices that occurred during the famine also contributed to the growing Republican movements that would lead to Irish freedom.

The response to the famine in the US was varied. When the Irish Famine began, the US was involved in a war with Mexico. Funds were raised across the US, and the first international relief effort by the United States was mounted. The sloop-of-war USS Jamestown was disarmed and filled with food.

American aid saved lives and started an American tradition of helping those in need. Americans were happy to send aid to Ireland, but as the Irish started arriving in American ports, things changed.

The Irish that came off the boats during the Great Famine were impoverished and malnourished. They dressed in worn and outdated clothing. Newspaper editorials portrayed the waves of Irish arriving on American shores as animalistic, backwards, uneducated, and immoral. They looked funny and worse yet, they were Catholic. Helping the Irish in Ireland was fine, but America didn't want any more Irish in America. Eventually, American ports started to close to ships coming from Ireland. The Irish were berated and belittled. Amazingly the caustic caricatures remain to this day (it's okay to use comic, demeaning Irish stereotypes in Saint Patrick's Day graphics on the local news, but they wouldn't dare wear black face or use minstrel show figures during February). This is an actual cartoon from Harper's Weekly, the Journal of Civilization.

The Irish were forced into the poorer districts of the cities, but they banded together. Before long the Irish were the business owners, politicians, and even in charge of organized crime! The Irish took the jobs that no one else would take. They loaded cotton bales on the Mississippi, a job considered too hazardous for slaves. They worked the bayous of Louisiana, mined coal in the Appalachians, and built the railroads. The Irish fought on both sides of the Civil War and rebuilt the nation in Reconstruction. The Irish that settled in the US were transformed by America and also transformed America. Saint Patrick's Day is a celebration of how much the Irish have contributed to the fabric of the United States. It is also a promise to immigrants today and for the future.

My great-great-grandfather came from Ireland during the Great Famine. He settled in Georgia just in time for the Civil War. Like many of the Irish he became a part of the fabric of America. The history of the United States is a history of the immigrant finding a home. Saint Patrick's Day in the United States is testimony of the impact immigrants can have on the nation.

Bad Judgment

On this day in 1857, the Supreme Court of the United States delivered their decision in the Dred Scott versus Sandford case. The court ruled against Scott and essentially ruled that slaves were not citizens of the United States. Slaves could not bring suit in Federal courts and limited the Federal government's role in regulating slavery in states established after the adoption of the Constitution. It was considered a major setback for abolitionists. While Chief Justice Roger Taney hoped that the ruling would settle the slave question, it helped prepare the way for the Civil War.

It is important to keep in mind that slavery was a legal institution under the Constitution of the United States. The court was upholding a Constitutionally protected institution that existed prior to the founding of the nation. Many legal scholars debate whether the court rendered the correct judgment. However, they approach the question with modern morality that abhors slavery (most of the time). But prior to the American Civil War the morality of slavery varied across the country. A significant number of Americans supported slavery as beneficial and necessary. Slavery was affirmed as legal, moral, and justifiable by the Constitution, public opinion, and the Supreme Court. Not everyone agreed with that. The Dred Scott case mobilized abolitionists, especially within the Republican party. The mobilization would eventually lift Abraham Lincoln to the White House and spark the Civil War.

Today we recognize that pro-slavery opinions were wrong. The Supreme Court only rules on what is legal under the Constitution, but they don't always rule on what is moral. Often the Supreme Court is considered the final arbiter. If Republicans had considered the Supreme Court the final arbiter in the 1850s, then slavery would have continued for several more decades. Many Americans recognized that the ruling of the Supreme Court was supporting something evil. They continued to work hard to end slavery in the United States. We should recognize that the Supreme Court and public opinion can be swayed to immoral positions that are acceptable to society. That does not make it right. Our standards for morality must come from a higher position and authority.

The First American Confederacy

On this day in 1781, the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union was ratified by the original 13 colonies. This document was crafted by the Second Continental Congress and formally established The United States of America. The document was drafted in 1776 and sent to the states for ratification in 1777. Some of the states were slow in ratifying it and, of course, there was the matter of a revolution. This document established the government that fought for independence from Great Britain.

The government established by the Articles of Confederation was a weak central government. Its primary duties were foreign affairs. The federal government took the responsibility to wage war, negotiate with foreign powers, and appoint ambassadors. The states were responsible for levying the taxes to run the government. The predominant power remained with the states though states agreed to share a common law. The Federalists thought this too weak a form of federal government and pressed for a new government document. Their objections led to the creation of United States Constitution, which was ratified on June 21, 1788.

The Articles created the office of President of the United States in Congress Assembled. Essentially, the president was the presiding officer of Congress and chaired the Committee of States, the government body that ran things when Congress was not in session. This arrangement was quite different from the office of the President under the US Constitution. Still, the leader of Congress was called the President, and you probably did not learn his name in elementary school. The first US president under the Articles of Confederation was Samuel Huntington. History is far more complicated than most people realize, and there are many great men who founded the US that are largely forgotten.

The First Rednecks

On this day in 1638 the National Covenant was signed in Edinburgh, Scotland. It was one of many covenants adopted by the Scots regarding the liturgy and polity of the Church of Scotland. Liturgy refers to the manner in which a worship service is conducted. Polity refers to the how the business of the church is conducted and by whom. The King of England, Charles I, and the Archbishop of Canterbury, William Laud, wanted the Church of Scotland to conform to the Church of England. Scotland was under the authority of King Charles, and he was in charge of the church. The King preferred the Episcopal structure with a hierarchy of bishops. It made sense for the church to be uniform across the kingdoms. The Scots disagreed. They favored a system that would become the Presbyterian Church (To my church history friends: I know this is an oversimplification).

Many of the Scots preferred the liturgy and polity of the Calvinist Reformers. They signed the covenants to show their dedication to their vision of the Church of Scotland. It was a serious matter tying religion and politics together that didn't always work well. Some of the Covenanters, as those who signed the National Covenant were known, also rejected the authority of Charles I. They tied the covenant to Scottish Nationalism. However, there were many Scots who wanted to remain loyal to Catholicism. Violent conflicts would eventually break out between Scottish Separatists and Loyalists as well as Protestants and Catholics. The entire event demonstrates the danger of state churches.

Eventually, the Covenanters did establish the Presbyterian Church as the dominant church of Scotland.  Predominantly drawn from the poor and lower classes, the Covenanters were criticized as unruly and uneducated by the Loyalist upper classes. The Covenanters were dedicated to their cause and put their lives on the line for their faith. Many of the Covenanters signed the National Covenant and the covenants that followed it in their own blood. To show their convictions, they wore red cloths tied around their neck. The Loyalists started calling the Covenanters "Rednecks." Though intended as an insult, the Covenanters adopted the name with pride. For many years in Scotland, Redneck became synonymous with Presbyterian. The first Rednecks were Scots who boldly proclaimed their faith as Reformed Protestants.

The White Rose

On this day in 1943, Hans Scholl, Sophie Scholl, and Christoph Probst were executed by the Nazi government. The three were members of a resistance group known as The White Rose.

Hans Scholl had been a member of the Hitler Youth, but after growing disillusioned he quit and began to explore avenues banned by the Nazi Regime. Drafted in 1939, he served in the medical corp of the Wehrmacht. He also attended medical school at the Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München. Hans initially supported the war effort as a typical patriotic German. However, he quickly became disillusioned with the war as he saw atrocities committed in France, Poland, and the Soviet Union. Along with some friends, Hans formed a group opposed to the Nazi government. They secretly distributed leaflets appealing to the intelligentsia of Germany to reject Hitler and Fascism. The leaflets quoted from the Bible, philosophers like Aristotle, and writers like Goethe. The most destructive activity the White Rose engaged in was graffiti. 

On February 18, Hans and his sister Sophie distributed White Rose pamphlets at the University of Munich. Though usually cautious, this time they were seen by a janitor who was also a member of the Nazi party. He immediately called the Gestapo, and the two were arrested. After they had been searched, evidence was found implicating another member of the group named Christoph Probst. 

On February 21, Hans Scholl, Sophie Scholl, and Christoph Probst were brought to trial before Judge Roland Freisler of the People's Court. Freisler was brought in from Berlin to ensure a guilty verdict. Though Probst asked for mercy on account of his sick wife, he was shown none. All three were condemned as traitors. There was supposed to be ninety days from the time of the judgment till the sentence was carried out, but the Nazis expedited the process. They were executed on the February 22 in Munich. On his way to the guillotine, Hans Scholl shouted, "Long live freedom!"

Both Hans and Sophie Scholl were raised in a devout Lutheran home. Though neither was overzealous in their faith in their youth, they were guided to resistance by their Christian faith. They bravely stood for righteousness when so many were willing to turn a blind eye to the crimes of the government. 

Too few people know about the White Rose Movement outside of Germany. In Germany, the martyrs of the White Rose are regarded as heroes. There are many books and movies about their brief lives. I highly recommend the film Sophie Scholl - Die letzten Tage made in 2005. It is in German with English subtitles and was available on Netflix. 

An Exile for Christ

On this day in 362 AD, Athanasius returned to Alexandria as his third exile came to an end. He had been in exile for six years in Upper Egypt evading arrest. He was about 65 years old when he returned from exile, but this would not be his last exile. He would be exiled two more times for various lengths of time and would die in 373.

Athanasius of Alexandria was the assistant to the Bishop Alexander of Alexandria at the Council of Nicaea. Athanasius would succeed Alexander as the Bishop of Alexandria. He would also take up his mentor's battle for orthodoxy in the church. Athanasius was well educated and well liked by the people. He was a Greek scholar, a textual critic, and expert theologian. If he had minded his own business, he probably would have been left alone in his city. However, Athanasius was dedicated to God and orthodoxy. He was a prolific author and he ably defended the doctrine of the Trinity. 

Athanasius of Alexander was a man that remained committed to God even when the world was against him. Several Roman Emperor's favored the heresy Arianism, but Athanasius wholeheartedly stood his ground against the false teaching. He never wavered in his commitment, even though it led to life-threatening conflict and exile. Athanasius could have experienced fame and comfort, but chose his commitment to God over the pleasures of the world. 

When the pressure comes to compromise our convictions, let us look to Athanasius. He stood his ground in faith and led the church toward orthodoxy. 

What's in a Name?: Deus vult!

The name of this blog is the combination of two mottos or battle cries. At the moment, I will focus on the first slogan: Deus vult! Deus vult is Latin for "God wills it" and was the battle cry of the Crusades. The Crusades were a series of events in history that are both fascinating and controversial. Often they are reduced to a caricature and their true nature is overlooked. In Western history, the crusades were often regarded as a heroic, though doomed effort. In the Mid East, the Crusades are portrayed as an evil endeavor that was ultimately overcome by God's heroic warriors. In recent years, the term Crusade has fallen into disrepute as it symbolizes European colonization and oppression. All of these approaches are problematic as they discard actual history and the lessons we can learn from it.

It is important to understand that, like all historical events, many factors led to the Crusades. The destruction of Christian Holy Sites, as well as the harassment of Christian pilgrims, contributed to a growing outrage amount European Christians. The catalyst that launched the Crusades was a  request for help from the Byzantine Emperor. The Byzantine Empire was the old Eastern Roman Empire, but it was under increasing assault from the Ottoman Empire. Though there was a great deal of tension between the Byzantine Empire and Western Europe, the Byzantine Empire was still within the realm of Christendom. The Byzantines wanted the West to open a new front against the Ottoman's in order to relieve some of the pressure against them. This endeavor also appealed to a dream of restoring the Holy Land to Christian control. In 1095, Pope Urban II issued a declaration for an endeavor to take back the Holy Land.

Unfortunately, the efforts of the Crusaders largely ended in failure. Though Crusaders did conquer the Holy Land and establish temporary kingdoms, they were eventually overwhelmed by Islamic forces. Perhaps the worst part of the entire effort befell the Byzantine Empire. The capital of Byzantium, Constantinople, was sacked by the Crusaders. Then it was conquered by the Ottomans. The Byzantine plan to save their empire led to their demise.

That is a condensed history, and there are specific elements I will address in the future. At the moment, though, my focus is on the motto of the Crusades: "God wills it." They truly believed that they were doing the work of God and that God would give them the victory. But the results would indicate that God did not will it. Ultimately the Crusades sought to solve a problem that could not be solved with a sword. Evangelists were needed, not knights. The church sought to solve a Spiritual challenge with worldly methods, and the results were disastrous. We must make sure that our methods are as righteous as our objectives. The ends do not justify the means if the means are abhorrent to God. We must be very careful in claiming God's sanction on our goals and activities. The battle cry of "Deus vult" should remind us that we cannot claim God's authority for something that we want, while ignoring the actual commands of God.

Marked for Christ

Last night as I was watching the news I saw many people with ash upon their foreheads. On Ash Wednesday Catholics and others involved in liturgical tradition are marked with ash. It is a declaration of their faith and participation in the Lenten season. Traditionally Baptists and other members of the Radical Reformation do not participate in these traditions and cite Matthew 6:16-18 as their reason to refuse wearing ash. As a Baptist, I think we have the right interpretation, but too often we make no external sign of fasting because we are not fasting at all.

One of the positive aspects of the mark of ash is identifying with the body of Christ. That mark proclaims that you belong to Jesus. Many people take that mark as merely ritual, and it does not have daily significance for them. Rather than being marked once a year for Christ, we should wear our mark daily. Paul spoke of his marks in Galatians 6:17: From now on let no one cause me trouble, for I bear on my body the marks of Jesus (ESV). Paul was not speaking of ashes on his forehead but of the physical scars he had received because of serving Christ. Paul lived daily to demonstrate Christ in his life, and that resulted in real wounds. Many of our brothers and sisters in Christ still receive physical marks if they demonstrate they are true Christ followers.

Many of us, though, are fortunate that we will never face physical persecution for our beliefs. But we still need to wear the mark of Christ daily. We need to live a life that demonstrates in word and deed our submission to Jesus. We need to live obediently to the commands of Christ and let our light shine in a dark world. People should know that we are Christians, not by the t-shirts and jewelry that we wear, but by the love that we show for one another (John 13:35).

Headed to the Cross

Today is Lent, also known as Ash Wednesday. For many, it is the day to recover from Mardi Gras. However, it seems that many people are excited about Mardi Gras, but they want to skip Lent. On a local news broadcast, they were announcing the events of the week. They made a big deal about Fat Tuesday but didn't even mention Lent.

On the Liturgical calendar, Lent is the major event of the year and is of far greater significance than Mardi Gras. Many churches discard the Liturgical Calendar regarding it as a Catholic thing. There are, however, many Protestants that use the Liturgical Calendar, and the Calendar can be a useful tool for the development of Spiritual disciplines.

Lent is an opportunity to think intentionally about Easter. The cross was not an accident but was the plan of God for the redemption of mankind. The first sign in the Gospel of John is the miracle at the wedding in Cana. Mary, the mother of Jesus, asks Jesus to help with the wedding. In John 2:4, Jesus responds, "My hour has not yet come." Throughout John, the term "hour" pops up in different places. Hour is a reference to the cross, and the Gospel of John is on a trajectory to the cross. Jesus was aware of the hour, and that guided his revelation to the world.

Christians are supposed to celebrate the Resurrection every Sunday, but there is a special emphasis on celebrating the Resurrection at Easter. As we approach Easter, we need to reflect on our need for the cross and the impact that it has on our life. Even though many of us do not follow the Liturgical Calendar, we should use this as a time to prepare our minds and hearts for Easter. In doing so, we will also increase our spiritual disciplines and our walk as disciples.