Jennifer L. Wright's Blog, page 11

Guilty or Not?

The case was open and shut.

On April 2, 1968, small-time crook and unapologetic racist James Earl Ray drove from Atlanta, Georgia to Memphis Tennessee. Two days later, on April 4, and armed with a Remington Model 760 Gamemaster .30-06-caliber rifle mounted with a Redfield 2x-7x scope, Ray killed civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr. with a single shot as King stood on the balcony on the second floor of the Lorraine Motel. Witnesses claimed to see Ray fleeing the scene just moments after the shot was fired. A package containing a rifle and a pair of binoculars was found abandoned near a rooming house–where Ray had been staying–across the street from the motel. Both items were covered with Ray’s fingerprints. After fleeing the country, Ray was eventually arrested at London’s Heathrow Airport in June and extradited back the United States. On March 10, 1969–his 41st birthday–Ray confessed to the assassination of Dr. King and was sentenced to 99 years in prison.

No trial. No questions. Nothing. A crime, a confession, a penalty. Done, done, and done.

Until it wasn’t

Only days later, Ray recanted his confession. Instead, he claimed, he’d been set up by a man named “Raoul” who, in 1967, recruited him into a gunrunning enterprise. It was Raoul, Ray said, who had directed him to buy the gun and the binoculars, and rent the room across the street from the motel. In fact, Ray maintained he wasn’t even in the room when King was shot; after realizing he was being set up to be the “fall guy” for the King assassination, he fled to Canada (hence the reason witnesses saw him flee the scene.) Despite these assertions, “Raoul” was never found and Ray was unable to give a conclusive answer to his whereabouts that day. His claims were dismissed and requests for a trial ignored for the next 29 years.

Ignored by everyone except the King family themselves.

During the 1990s, the widow and children of Martin Luther King Jr., spoke publicly in support of Ray and his claims, calling him innocent and speculating about an assassination conspiracy involving the U.S. government and military.

“It pains my heart,” said Bernice King, 55, the youngest of Martin Luther King’s four children and the executive director of the King Center in Atlanta, is quoted as saying in Washington Post article, “that James Earl Ray had to spend his life in prison paying for things he didn’t do.”

According to the King family, there were multiple government and military agencies discontent with King’s activities and, in the months and years leading up to his assassination, keeping close tabs on the civil rights leader. FBI J. Edgar Hoover, for one, believed King to be a communist and openly denounced and smeared King’s name in public. The FBI maintained constant surveillance and wiretapping on all King’s communication and activities, with one former agent claiming the bureau’s tracking of King was second “only to the way they went after Jimmy Hoffa.” King’s call for radical economic reforms, including guaranteed annual incomes for all, only furthered suspicions about his communist ties, putting him under further scrutiny by the Cold War-era U.S. government. In addition, Dr. King was also monitored by U.S. military intelligence, after he publicly denounced the Vietnam War. All of this, King’s family maintained, lays the groundwork for a reasonable belief that King was the target of a plot. They even went so far as to file a civil suit in 1999. During the subsequent trial, a Memphis jury ruled that the local, state and federal governments were liable for King’s death.

However, history, it seemed, had already been written. Ray, who had died in prison the previous year, was not exonerated. And the running, accepted narrative is still that James Earl Ray shot and killed Martin Luther King, Jr.

But neither has it put the conspiracy theories to rest.

While some believe in Ray’s innocence–most notable the King family–others surmise he may pulled the trigger but have been bolstered by the support of others–a sort of “low level” conspiracy. The House Select Committee on Assassinations under chief counsel Robert Blakey, theorized in 1979 that Ray committed the killing in the hope of collecting a $50,000 bounty offered by supporters of then-presidential candidate George Wallace in St. Louis, where Ray’s brothers lived. Ray was a known Wallace supporter, even volunteering at Wallace’s campaign headquarters in North Hollywood. There was, however, no definitive evidence to prove that Wallace nor any of his supporters played any role in the assassination.

In 1998, the King family pleaded with then-President Bill Clinton to reinvestigate the case. Attorney General Janet Reno assigned civil rights special counsel Barry Kowalski to review the newest conspiracy allegations. In 2000, even after reviewing the results of the 1999 civil trial in Memphis, Kowalski concluded that Ray was guilty and that there was no government conspiracy.

King’s widow died in 2006, still maintaining Ray’s innocence.

So who really killed Dr. King and why? Was Ray a murderous racist, a hired assassin, or an unlucky fall guy?

The world, unfortunately, may never know for sure.

E-Book Sale!

The ebook version of my novel, ‘Come Down Somewhere’ is currently on sale for only $1.99 now through March 31! To get your copy, visit https://www.tyndale.com/p/come-down-somewhere/21896/e-book

As an added bonus, all month long I’ll be posting notes and highlights from the ebook version on Goodreads. Follow along to learn some historical tidbits and sneak a peek behind-the-scenes of the writing process of the novel.

Happy Reading!

Willful Disbelief

Being a Christian is risky.

We live in a world that is increasingly hostile to a Christ-centered worldview. Our beliefs are seen as childish, ignorant, or sometimes downright malicious. As culture moves further and further away from the cross, the chasm between believers and non-believers grows wider and, at times, un-breachable. The arguments against Christianity come from every side and often range in tone somewhere between pity and hatred. I firmly believe it is every Christian’s duty to be able to defend the faith (see 1 Peter 3:15) and heartily endorse at least a basic understanding of the study of apologetics. As Jesus himself said in Luke 10:27: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind…”

Apologetics, I believe, is a way to love God with your mind.

And so I’ve studied apologetics for many years. I find it fascinating how the gospels can stand up to even the harshest of tests; my faith has been made stronger for my searching. Not only that, I’ve also been able to answer some of the questions that have come up among my children as they grow and explore their own faith as well as a few of my non-believing friends. While I may not have “converted” anyone, I’ve at least remained confident I’d stood my ground, defended my faith, and given him or her something to think about.

And then there’s this one guy.

While you may not know this guy personally, I can almost guarantee you’ve come across someone like him in your life. Someone who isn’t just a non-believer but anti-believer. That one guy who finds every opportunity to belittle Christians or mock God. That guy who challenges every aspect of your faith with questions and snide remarks but refuses to acknowledge any defense you try to mount.

No matter the evidence, no matter the explanation, this one guy simply refuses to see any validity to your side.

It’s absolutely infuriating.

But it’s not new.

After Jesus’s ascension, the disciples quickly took his command to “be [His] witnesses” (Acts 1:8) to heart and began preaching the gospel around Jerusalem. Aided by the Holy Spirit, they were able to speak with boldness and perform miracles in Jesus’s name, including healing a man who was “lame from birth” (Acts 3:2). The man was situated outside the temple gate and begged Peter and John, who were going inside to pray, for money. But Peter said, “‘I don’t have silver or gold, but what I do have, I give you: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, get up and walk!’ Then, taking him by the right hand he raised him up, and at once his feet and ankles became strong. So he jumped up and started to walk, and he entered the temple with them–walking, leaping, and praising God. All the people saw him walking and praising God, and they recognized that he was the one who used to sit and beg at the Beautiful Gate of the temple. So they were filled with awe and astonishment at what had happened to him” (Acts 3: 6-10).

A wonderful, life-changing miracle, right?

Not if you were a Sadducee.

Just a few verses later, we read that “while they [the disciples] were speaking to the people, the priests, the captain of the temple police, and the Sadducees confronted them, because they were annoyed that they were teaching the people and proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection of the dead. So they seized them and took them into custody until the next day since it was already evening” (Acts 4:1-3).

I love the CSB translation that the Sadducees were “annoyed.” Other versions translate this verse as “disturbed” (NIV) or “grieved” (KJV), but the message is essentially the same. The Sadducees, along with the Pharisees, had just put that Jesus guy to death. They believed they’d put an end to His movement. And yet here these two men still talking about Him, preaching about Him, and now–apparently–performing miracles in His name?

Something had to be done.

“The next day, their rulers, elders, and scribes assembled in Jerusalem with Annas the high priest, Caiaphas, John, Alexander, and all the members of the high-priestly family. After they had Peter and John stand before them, they began to question them: ‘By what power or in what name have you done this?’ Then Peter was filled with the Holy Spirit and said to them, ‘Rulers of the people and elders: If we are being examined today about a good deed done to a disabled man, by what means he was healed, let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified and whom God raised from the dead–by him this man is standing here before you healthy. This Jesus is the stone rejected by you builders, which has become the cornerstone. There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to people by which we must bed saved” (Acts 4:5-12).

Peter did not mince words. He pointed out the hypocrisy of the meeting itself, wondering why there was a full-up inquisition for a “good deed,” and proclaimed boldly the truth of Christ–His death (for which they were responsible), His resurrection (in which they didn’t believe), and His godliness (proven through the man’s healing).

In short, they had asked him a question, and he had given them an answer. A powerful, succinct, truth-filled answer, backed up by evidence not even the Sanhedrin could deny, as it was there before their very eyes.

First, they “observed the boldness of Peter and John” (Acts 4:13): Gathering these two men in front of the entire Sanhedrin was act of intimidation and power. The disciples would have been very aware that these men had just crucified Jesus…and were very capable of doing the same to them. And yet rather than cower or acquiesce (as most would do), Peter spoke plainly and confidently, without reservation or fear. Not only that, at the end of his speech, Peter unflinchingly maintained faith in Jesus as the only means to salvation.

Secondly, “they realized that they were uneducated and untrained men” (Acts 4:13): The disciples had no formal rabbinic training but Peter was able to eloquently quote Scripture (Acts 4:11 is a quote from Psalm 118:22). Although many Jewish men were raised in devout homes, not many–especially not many sons of fishermen–were able to quote the Word of God. The only difference between the disciples and other “uneducated men” was that they “had been with Jesus” (Acts 4:13).

Lastly, and perhaps most strikingly, was the evidence of the healed man himself. The Sanhedrin “saw the man who had been healed standing with them” and they “had nothing to say in opposition” (Acts 4:14). Here, in the flesh, was indisputable evidence that a miracle had occurred. This man, lame from birth, was now standing beside Peter and John, whole and healthy, with no other explanation besides the one given by the man through whom the healing had come. And that man–uneducated by bold–said the healing had been done through Jesus.

Pretty powerful and compelling stuff.

And yet the Sanhedrin, rather than gathering this evidence and coming to a reasonable conclusion–that Jesus had been raised from the dead and was performing miracles through His disciples–instead “conferred among themselves saying, ‘What should we do with these men? For an obvious sign has been done through them, clear to everyone living in Jerusalem, and we cannot deny it. But so that this does not spread any further among the people, let’s threaten them against speaking to anyone in this name again” (Acts 4: 15-17).

This was a willful and arrogant denial of evidence, rooted in the Sanhedrin’s desire for self-preservation. Their decision came, not out of a desire to protect God’s people from false teaching, but out of self-interest: a desire to protect themselves and their position. You see, accepting this evidence for what it was–proof of who Jesus is–would have meant accepting the truth about themselves: that they had been wrong.

Wrong about Jesus. Wrong for crucifying Him. Wrong for denying resurrection. Wrong for detaining the disciples.

Accepting evidence would have meant a personal reckoning the Sanhedrin were unwilling to endure. So, instead, they threatened the disciples and “ordered them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus” (Acts 4: 18).

And the same self-preservation and denial methods continue to this very day. While we should always be prepared to defend our faith, we must realize that there are some people out there who will never be convinced about the Truth of Jesus, no matter what evidence or arguments we present. For these people, they choose not to believe NOT because there is “no proof” (although many will still claim this defense) but rather because they don’t want to believe.

Because believing can upend your world and everything in it.

Because believing forces you to come to grips with who you really are: broken, sinful, and in need of a savor.

Because believing can cost you money, position, power, and friends.

Because believing means accepting that you are not the god you thought you were.

Because believing makes you realize that have been wrong.

For some people, these are prices too steep to pay for faith, no matter what evidence we provide to its validity. And, sometimes, these people will choose to react exactly like the Sanhedrin did thousands of years ago: they will threaten you. Or perhaps belittle or mock you. Anything to cut you down so they can continue living in their version of truth.

We should pray for these people, of course. That God will soften their hearts and open their eyes to His saving grace. But that doesn’t mean we have to continue to argue with them…nor remain silent out of fear. Because when hostile unbelievers threaten or discourage us like the Sanhedrin, we can respond like Peter and John.

“Peter and John answered them, ‘Whether it’s right in the sight of God for us to listen to you rather than to God, you decide; for we are unable to stop speaking about what we have seen and heard” (Acts 4:19-20).

Don’t let anyone bully you into silence, brothers and sisters. For while it is not our duty to get others to believe Truth, it is our duty to preach it.

The Make-Believe Battle

In February 1942, the entire west coast of the United States was on edge.

Only two months before, the Japanese had successfully executed a surprise, devastating attack on Pearl Harbor, thrusting the United States into war. The Imperial Army seemed unstoppable, as Pacific island after Pacific Island fell under Japanese control. Many in California, Oregon, and Washington believed it was only a matter of time before that same army turned its sights on the U.S. mainland. Rumors abounded, causing schools to close, black-out orders to be enacted, and radio silence to be imposed.

These fears were not ungrounded. Secretary of War Henry Stimson warned that American cities should be prepared to accept “occasional blows” from enemy forces. And, for the past few months, Japanese submarines had been patrolling the western seaboard. They had sunk two merchant ships, damaged six others, and engaged in skirmishes with the U.S. Navy. Beach goers kept their eyes on the ocean; the enemy was out there, they knew. And it wouldn’t take long before what seemed like a distant war would land upon their shores.

And land it did on February 23, 1942.

Shortly after seven that evening, residents began to hear what they believed to be thunder. Only it wasn’t thunder. An I-17 Japanese submarine, under the command of Kozo Nishino, had opened fire on the town of Goleta, near Santa Barbara, home to the Ellwood Oil Field, the largest oil field in California. Although aiming their deck gun at the oil storage tanks, many shells missed their targets. The Japanese shells destroyed a derrick and pump house. The Ellwood Pier and catwalk suffered minor damage, while one shell narrowly avoiding hitting nearby Wheeler’s Inn. The entire episode lasted only about twenty minutes before the shelling ceased and the submarine disappeared into the night.

The physical destruction was minor. The psychological damage, however, was meteoric.

The following night, on February 24, the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) issued a warning that an attack on mainland California could be expected within the next ten hours. Units on the California coast were put on alert.

Shortly after 2 a.m. the next day, military radar picked up what appeared to be an enemy contact some 120 miles west of Los Angeles. Air raid sirens sounded across Los Angeles county at 2:25 a.m. and a citywide blackout was put into effect. Air wardens were called to their posts and, within minutes, troops had manned anti-aircraft guns and begun sweeping the skies with searchlights. 

At 3:16 am, the 37th Coast Artillery Brigade in Santa Monica began firing .50-caliber machine guns and 12.8-pound anti-aircraft shells into the air at reported aircraft. Before long, many of the city’s other coastal defense weapons had joined in. By the time the “attack” was over an hour later, over 1,400 shells had been fired.

Smoke and searchlights filled the skies. Chaos filled the streets. Conflicting reports poured in from all over the city. Some described Japanese aircraft flying in formation, bombs falling and enemy paratroopers descending to the ground. There was even a claim of a Japanese plane crash landing in the streets of Hollywood. Others, including Coastal Artillery Corps Colonel John G. Murphy later, expressed confusion, as neither he nor those around him saw “no planes of any type in the sky—friendly or enemy.”

The “all clear” was eventually sounded and the blackout order lifted at 7:21 a.m. But, as exhausted and nerve-stricken residents emerged from their homes, they discovered something curious: there appeared to have been no enemy attack. “Although reports were conflicting and every effort is being made to ascertain the facts, it is clear that no bombs were dropped and no planes were shot down,” read a statement from the Army’s Western Defense Command. 

The only damage had come from friendly fire. During the “attack” anti-aircraft shrapnel shattered windows and ripped through buildings in the city. One dud careened into a Long Beach golf course, and several residents had their homes partially destroyed by 3-inch artillery shells. In addition, at least five people died during the night as result of heart attacks or car accidents that occurred during the black-out. Even worse, many Japanese-Americans were arrested for allegedly trying to assist or signal enemy aircraft, a chilling beginning to the paranoia-induced “internment camps” that soon dotted the west coast.

So, if it hadn’t been a Japanese attack, what was it?

Over the next few days, government and media outlets issued contradictory reports on what later became known as the “Battle of Los Angeles.” Secretary of the Navy Frank Knox dismissed the firefight as a false alarm brought on by “jittery nerves.” But what about the claims by the thousands of people who believed they saw something in the skies that night?

Secretary of War Henry Stimson maintained that at least 15 planes had buzzed the city and put forth the idea the phantom fighters might have been commercial aircraft “operated by enemy agents” hoping to strike fear into the public (though he later backtracked on this claim). There were no shortage of conspiracy theories, from UFOs to a government-led exercise to help defense industry complexes achieve their goal of moving further inland.

The most likely explanation, however, is the one put forth by the Office of Air Force History in 1983. On the night of the “attack,” the United States Coast Artillery Association recognized a meteorological balloon that was released around 1:00 a.m. to help determine wind conditions. Itchy trigger fingers and heightened paranoia combined with the lights and silver color on the balloon to create the illusion of enemy aircraft. Once the shooting began, the disorienting combination of searchlights, smoke and anti-aircraft flak might have led gunners to believe they were firing on enemy planes even though none were actually present. 

The irony of the “pretend battle” occurring in Los Angeles was not lost on journalists. In an article from March 1942, the New York Times wrote that as the “world’s preeminent fabricator of make-believe,” Hollywood appeared to have played host to a battle that was “just another illusion.”

Get That ‘Love’ Stuff Out of Here

Ah, the day after Valentine’s Day. Or, as I like to call it, the “75% off love day.”

Whereas just 24 hours ago, love was everywhere–flowers, balloons, candy, red hearts–today, all that remains are the few stragglers of which stores are desperate to be rid. Hence the cheap prices on wilted roses, sinking balloons, stale candy, and crumpled hearts. And while I love a good deal (I’m midwestern–it’s in my blood!), it’s actually a little sad how quickly our culture moves from celebrating love to throwing it away.

Yes, okay, I get it–these items are just *things* not actual love. But isn’t it a heartbreaking representation of our society’s views on “love?” To our modern day sensibilities, love is all about feelings. It’s an emotional thing. Love is something we experience with our senses. It’s something we consume. And then, once those strong feelings fade, we toss it out. Mark it down to 75% off and move on to something newer and shinier.

Is it any wonder the decline in marriage, skyrocketing divorce rate, or prevalence of lonely singles in our country?

We’ve lost the true meaning of love.

While emotions play a role in those initial feelings of attraction and/or connection, real love is so much more than that…and it must be. Because emotions can change on a dime. Think about how many emotions you’ve felt since you woke up this morning. I’m writing this blog post at 9:00 AM and already I’ve felt grumpy (because I didn’t want to get out of bed), frustrated (because my son couldn’t find his homework when it was time to leave for school), happy (because I hit all green lights on my way to drop my kids off), sad (because I noticed a hole in my favorite pair of shoes), and irritated (because my husband left a mess on his side of the bathroom).

Whew. Exhausting.

I’m going to admit that I didn’t *feel* love towards my husband or children this morning. They irritated me. They frustrated me. They down-right got on my nerves (how many times do I have ask them to gather their supplies the night before or clean up after themselves?!) If I was going purely based on my emotions, I might start to believe that I didn’t love them.

That sounds terrible, doesn’t it? But why? If we’re going by society’s definition of love–feelings–then I’m speaking truth. I didn’t feel love for my husband or children this morning. But the reason this statement seems to wrong is because, deep down, we know there is more to love than feelings. And this knowledge comes from the spirit of Truth God implanted in each one of us.

In Matthew 22, Jesus was asked by the Pharisees what the greatest commandment was. He replied, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself.” (verses 37-39).

We are not only commanded to love, we were created to love–first to love God, and then to love people. As the French archbishop Francois Fenelon put it: “Love God. Everything will come by love.”

But what does it mean to love God? If we go by society’s definition of love (that based on emotions), it would be extremely difficult to do. I’ve been following Jesus for many years now, and even I will admit–there are some days when it seems like God is far away. When it feels as if He doesn’t care, doesn’t love me, and doesn’t care. If I were to love Him based purely on my feelings from day-to-day, I probably would have given up a long time ago. Because some days it feels impossible to love Someone you can’t see, whose ways are mysterious and unknown. And, if I can’t love God, how can I ever truly love people?

Therein lies the truth–we can’t truly love people–with a real love–until we understand what it truly means to love God. And loving God isn’t about our feelings.

As Fenelon said: “God is not expecting any particular kind of emotion from you. All He asks is that you remain faithful.” He goes on to add that “faithfulness unsustained by pleasant emotions is far purer and more reliable than one dependent on tender feelings.”

Loving God means remaining faithful to Him despite our feelings.

Some days I can feel God’s presence all around me. I can hear His voice, sense His whispers, rest in His embrace. Other days, He seems far away. Maybe I’m grumpy, maybe I’m “sin sick,” maybe I’m mad a certain person or circumstance. Maybe I’m mad at Him. Truly loving God means that even on those days when I don’t want to, I live my life faithful to Him.

Jesus reiterated this in John 14:15 when He said, “If you love me, you will obey what I command.” Keep in mind, He’s telling His disciples this right before His crucifixion. They were scared, confused, and perhaps even a little bit angry that it didn’t appear as if Jesus were going to fight back against Roman oppression, which they hoped He would do. He understood their emotions were probably all over the place. So He gave them this directive; loving Him meant staying faithful to Him and His teachings. No matter the circumstance. No matter their feelings.

Loving God isn’t about emotion. It is about will. Fenelon said, “Please understand about love. All I ask is that your will lean toward love. Regardless of how you feel, make up your mind to love God.”

This is true even in our earthly relationships. To truly love another person–whether it be a spouse, child, friend, or relative–is about our commitment to remain faithful to him or her no matter how we feel. Emotions come and go; you may have experience several just reading this article. But the love God desires for us and from us is stronger than our feelings. It is a love rooted in Truth and bolstered by faithfulness.

Of course, in our sinful, fallen natures, even the strongest of wills can falter under the pressures of daily life. This is where the Holy Spirit comes in; it is through God in us that we are able to love Him and love others.

And that’s the kind of love that will never be 75% off.

Blood, Whipping, and Chaucer: The Truth Behind St. Valentine’s Day (RE-POST)

**Recently, my kids asked me about the origins of Valentine’s Day so, as a nod to the upcoming holiday, I thought it appropriate to re-hash this article I wrote a few years ago. It’s not all candy hearts and roses, folks. Enjoy!

The ancient Romans celebrated the feast of Lupercalia in mid-February, usually from the 13th-15th, in an effort to avert evil spirits and purify the city. The celebration started in a cave known as Lupercal where, tradition said, Roman founders Romulus and Remus were nursed by she-wolf Lupa. Inside the cave lay an altar, where drunk, naked men would sacrifice a goat and a dog, skin the animals, then proceed from the cave, located on Palatine Hill, down to the streets of Rome and into the Forum. Along the way, eager women waited, hoping to be whipped by the skins, believing the touch of the hides would bring them fertility.

It was during this festival that Emperor Claudis II executed a man known as Valentine in the 3rd century A.D. Although the name is now synonymous with love, little is actually known about the man himself–both his true identity or his deeds. In fact, there is speculation that Valentine wasn’t even one man but several, which could explain why the stories of his actions are so varied.

In some legends, he was executed for refusing to deny Christ before the Emperor. Before his execution, however, he restored sight and hearing to the daughter of his jailer. The name Valentine, rather than being associated with romantic love, was actually a derivative of the word “valor.” Another variation claims he was executed for refusing to sacrifice to pagan gods but still chose to heal his jailer’s daughter, leaving a note to her prior to his death signed “Your Valentine.”

More traditional stories maintain Valentine was arrested and killed for secretly marrying Christian couples in Rome, a severe crime during a time when Christians were being persecuted by the Roman government.

Whatever the case, after Christianity was adopted by Rome in 313 A.D., a move was made to purge the pagan rituals of the past–including Lupercalia. The martyrdom of Valentine around the same time became the perfect substitute for a holiday, although early celebrations became more a merging of the two than a replacement. Many of the rituals remained the same and, although their may have been less drunkenness, nakedness, and whipping, the day was still associated with love and fertility.

It wasn’t until the 14th century when the idea of “romantic love” took hold, thanks in part to Chaucer and his poem ‘Parlement of Foules,’ written as a dream vision and containing one of the earliest references to St. Valentine’s Day as a “romantic” day for lovers:

“For this was sent on Seynt Valentyne’s day
Whan every foul cometh ther to choose his mate”

Later, Shakespeare enforced the tradition, referring to the meeting of lovers on St. Valentine’s Day in ‘A Midsummer Night’s Dream’:

“To-morrow is Saint Valentine’s day,
All in the morning betime,
And I a maid at your window,
To be your Valentine.”

Today, Valentine’s Day is big business, with the holiday raking in almost $20 billion in sales, including candy, cards, and jewelry. It’s a time of romance and love, of celebrating relationships and the gift of togetherness. No matter the truth of his identity or deeds, people around the world celebrate the legend of St. Valentine for the hope his “love conquers all” mentality brings.

And there’s very little whipping involved.

I think.

Shaky Ground

In Psalm 11, King David asks a question many of us have probably been asking over the last few months if not years: “The foundations of law and order have collapsed. What can the righteous do?” (11:3).

Has the world ever felt like that to you? We see riots and lawlessness, blatant evil and unimaginable harm. There are wars, coups, and extremist violence in nearly every country; the threat of doom is constantly lurking around every corner.

And it isn’t just in politics or foreign relations. In our culture, as secularism rises, we have seen our once-steady moral foundation upended on a whim. Now, values can be summed up, as Natasha Crain puts it in her book Faithfully Different, “feelings are the ultimate guide, happiness is the ultimate goal, judging is the ultimate sin, and God is the ultimate guess” (page 52). This has led to a “me-first,” constantly offended, morally slippery version of reality in which many Christians, myself included, feel lost.

And, if I’m being honest, at times, hopeless. It does feel at times as if our country–and our world–is teetering on the edge of a complete collapse.

In Psalm 11, David was dealing with a form of “societal collapse.” During this time, David was a fugitive from King Saul. What had once been a beautiful relationship had collapsed under the weight of Saul’s insecurity and jealousy; the boy who had been anointed as a future king was now afraid for his life. He traveled from community to community, seeking peace and security, only to be chased out once again by either King Saul’s men or King Saul himself. From a peaceful pasture with his sheep to the halls of the palace to hiding in caves as murderous plots–plots enacted by the king–swirled around him–it was no wonder David felt as if “the foundations of law and order [had] collapsed.”

Nothing was as it was. Nothing was as it should have been. David had every right to feel downhearted and hopeless. Those around him encouraged him to run flee, to reject the crown and instead choose life in hiding, safe from Saul and the threats of the world.

And let’s be honest–how many of us would be tempted to take that advice? In the short-term, it’s safer and, seemingly, wiser. But in the long-term?

Thankfully, David chose to look at the eternal rather than the temporary. “In the Lord I take refuge,” he writes in verse 1. “The Lord is in his holy temple; the Lord still rules from heaven. He watches everyone closely, examining every person on earth. The Lord examines both the righteous and the wicked” (verses 4-5).

As his world (and what perhaps may have seemed like the world at large) crumbled, David chose to keep his eyes on what he knew to be true: God was still on the throne, still sovereign, and still keeping an eye on everyone and everything. He hadn’t forgotten David, despite the wickedness playing out all around. While it may have seemed to David as if the foundation of this world was collapsing, the true foundation–the foundation not of this world–was as strong as ever.

And this remains just as true for us today as it did for David. The world is a scary place. Any glance at the nightly news will show us the far-reaching effects of sin in every corner of the globe. Any peruse of movies, tv shows, or even commercials will shove secular culture’s “truth” down our throats, whether we want it or not. As rejection of Christian values grows and the culture of “self” accelerates, it can feel as if we are losing our foundation right out from under our feet.

How can we stand?

“What can the righteous do?” (verse 3b, NIV).

We can choose, like David, to take refuge in God. That doesn’t mean we flee. It doesn’t mean we hide. It doesn’t mean we reject the crown of life bestowed upon us by Christ. It means we remember “the Lord is in his holy temple; the Lord is on his heavenly throne” (verse 4a, NIV) and we live like this is true…because it is.

We should not be surprised when the foundations of this world crack; its downfall is an inevitably foretold thousands of years ago. And though it can be scary and unsettling, we do not have to let it make us feel helpless or defeated. Because our trust is not in the foundation of this world, nor in any of the created things in it. Rather, it is in the Creator Himself, the one who spoke these words:

“‘Though the mountains be shaken and the hill be removed, yet my unfailing love for you will not be shaken nor my covenant of peace be removed,’ says the Lord who has compassion on you” (Isaiah 54:10).

We, as believers in Christ, stand on solid ground, one that does not falter or splinter with the ever-changing ways of society and culture. We may shake but we will not fall so long as we transfix our eyes on the eternal unseen.

“For the Lord is righteous, he loves justice; upright men will see his face” (Psalm 11:7).

I *maybe* Claim This Land for Russia

On this day in 1820, a Russian expedition led by Fabian Gottlieb von Bellingshausen spotted an ice shelf attached to Antarctic land now known as Queen Maud Land, making them the first to see the long-sought-after Terra Australis Incognita (“unknown southern land”) many explorers before had tried–and failed–to locate. It should have been a major accomplishment, giving Bellingshausen fame, glory, and his name in history books.

Except, it didn’t.

For over a hundred years, countries had been itching to claim victory and ownership of this far Southern land by being the first to actually prove it existed. Many empires had sent forth their bravest explorers in hopes of bringing prestige to their crowns. Most notable among these is Captain James Cook, who would later go on to make the first European contact with the coasts of Australia and Hawaii. Cook spent three years looking for Antarctica during his second voyage, which lasted from 1772-1775. The expedition took Cook and his men into the Antarctic Circle, but the explorer eventually called it quits after failing to find the continent–although later exploration would show Cook had been just a mere 80 miles from the continent’s coast.

So when Bellingshausen finally spotted Antarctica after so many failed attempts, it was a big deal, not only in the name of science, but also for geography–here, finally was proof the long-rumored continent existed.

Except, Bellingshausen is rarely given credit (outside of Russia) for his discovery.

For many years, tribute was instead paid to Edward Bransfield, an Irish sailor on a British expedition, who spotted what would later become known as the Trinity peninsula just three days later on January 30, 1820.

So, why the confusion?

It appears that while Bransfield was immediately aware of what he saw, describing “high mountains covered with snow,” Bellingshausen, it seems, took a more cautious approach. He was unwilling to claim definitive sighting of the lost continent because he wasn’t sure if, through the haze, what he was seeing was actual land or merely a large, floating iceberg. Because of this, upon Bellingshausen’s return to Russia, his “discovery” was largely ignored. In later years, an incorrect translation of his journal and some confusion over the specific date of his observations only stood to further discredit his findings. It’s only been more recently, under closer analysis and better understanding of the records, that Bellingshausen’s achievement has come to light. Most experts now agree he did see the continent earlier than anyone else. His descriptions of the lie of the land, mountain peaks, and ice caps tie into what explorers now know to be a spot on the northwestern coast of the continent.

Of course, the British still refuse to give up their claim of discovery, even despite this new evidence and Russia’s insistence on “righting the history books.” It’s become a point of national pride; so much so, in fact, that even America has gotten into the fight, though its explorer, Nathaniel Palmer, didn’t arrive until November 1820.

So, who discovered Antarctica and when?

Depends on who you ask.

*Not* Working For God

Eugene Peterson writes: “There are times when our grand human plans to do something for God are seen, after a night of prayer, to be a huge human distraction from what God is doing for us.”

As a Christian author, I can find myself stumbling over this truth time and time and time again. When I made the decision to give God my writing career, it was with a level of humility that can come only with the realization it was already His to begin with. Any talent I may possess comes from Him; any desire to put pen to paper comes from Him; any success I have within this chosen field comes from Him. Understanding these truths leads to a greater appreciation for God, but it can also lead to greater desire to do things for Him. I want to write more books, speak more Truth, be an ambassador for His name—I want to perform all of these tasks to glorify Him. And, while that’s not necessarily a bad thing, I have to be careful that I don’t get so busy working for Him that I miss HIS work IN ME.

Because that’s what it comes down to, doesn’t it? Although God invites us to participate in His plans and celebrates our service to Him, living our lives continually doing things for His glory changes US. While we’re working for Him, He is simultaneously working IN US, changing us and molding us further into the image of Christ He desires.

A perfect case-in-point for this can be found in 2 Samuel 7. Here we find David, finally crowned king, settled in his palace and at rest from his enemies. As a “man after [God’s] own heart” (1 Samuel 13:14), David recognized the Lord’s blessing in his current situation and said to the prophet Nathan, “Here I am, living a palace of cedar, while the ark of God remains in a tent” (2 Samuel 7:2). Bearing this in mind, he made it his goal to build a magnificent temple in which God could dwell and His people could worship.

Sounds great, right? Noble, righteous, God-honoring work, for sure.

But it was not to be.

In the next passage, we overhear God speaking to Nathan in a dream that night. “Go and tell my servant David, ‘This is what the Lord says: Are you the one to build me a house to dwell in? I have not dwelt in a house from the day I brought the Israelites up out of Egypt to this day. I have been moving from place to place with a tent as my dwelling. Wherever I have moved with the Israelites, did I ever say to any of their rulers whom I commanded to shepherd my people Israel, ‘Why have you not built me a house of cedar?’…when your days are over and you rest with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, who will come from your own body, and I will establish his kingdom. He is the one who will build a house for my Name…” (2 Samuel 7:5-13).

Did you catch it? David wanted to do this great, God-honoring thing…and God told him no.

If you sit and think about it with our human sensibilities, it can seem jarring. Why wouldn’t God want a temple? For Himself and His people? What David wanted to do was a good thing. It doesn’t make any sense. We can speculate all day about God’s reasoning behind His denial (and many theologians have done so, if you’re curious) but, for us, I think that’s missing the point. Because the point here isn’t God’s rejection of David’s plan, even though it was one in which he was attempting to glorify the Lord. The point here is David’s reaction to that declination.

You see, in addition to telling David that he was not the one to build the temple, God also took the time to remind David of His past faithfulness–and His future:

“I took you from the pasture and from following the flock to be ruler over my people Israel. I have been with you wherever you have gone, and I have cut off all your enemies from before you. Now I will make your name great, like the names of the greatest men on earth…the Lord declares to you that the Lord himself will establish a house for you…your house and your kingdom will endure forever before me, your throne will be established forever.” (2 Samuel 7:8-16).

Yes, there are many reasons God may have had for denying David’s intention to build a temple. But I love the emphasis in His words. In a sense, He was telling David, “I know you want to do something for me. But instead, I want you to see what I’m going to do for you.” Rather than David building a “house” for God, God was going to build a “house” for him–an everlasting throne and kingdom, culminating in God’s own Son, born in the line of David, to endure for all times. Although it’s pure speculation, perhaps God’s reason for turning down David’s goal of building a temple was so David wouldn’t be so distracted by his work for God that he missed the work from God. As Peterson puts it, perhaps God was preventing David from making God an “afterthought” when He is really the “architect.”

Doing good works for God is wonderful thing. Not only that, its necessary if we want to live in obedience and have an “alive” faith (see James 2:17). However, we must realize not every “good deed” is meant for us; there are times when God will tell us no, even when our plans are ones that seek to honor Him. My prayer is that you and I never forget the ultimate goal is Christ working in us and that, in humility, we will accept that sometimes that goal will take priority in His kingdom.

So, when God tells us no, I pray we can respond like David. Did David beg and plead? Pout and sulk? Or, worse, go ahead and build the temple anyway?

No. Instead, he “went in and sat before the Lord” (verse 17) and offered up these words of praise:

“Who am I, O Sovereign Lord, and what is my family, that you have brought me this far? And as if this were not enough in your sight, O Sovereign Lord, you have also spoken about the future of the house of your servant…how great you are, O Sovereign Lord! There is no one like you, and there is no God but you, as we have heard with our own ears…your words are trustworthy, and you have promised these good things to your servant.” (2 Samuel 7: 18-28).

Like David, we have assurances of God’s future plans for us, plans that may or may not include the things we want to do for Him. But we can trust in Who He is, His sovereignty, and–most of all–the glorious work He Himself is doing in us. As such, we can surrender all of our plans to His.

Because sometimes not doing something for God is the act of greatest obedience.

The Beginning of a Dream (Re-Post)

In honor the upcoming Martin Luther King Jr. Day holiday, today’s #historyfriday article is a repost of a feature I wrote a few years back. It’s worth sharing again, as we honor the life and legacy of this important Civil Rights activist:

“I have a dream.”

Perhaps one of the most famous lines in all of American history. On August 28, 1963, a mere 5 years before his death, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. delivered these words on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C. during the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, painting a picture of an integrated and unified America.

But where did this dream come from?

Dr. King’s father, Michael King Sr., came from a poor sharecropping family in rural Georgia. He married Alberta Williams in 1926 and moved with her to her father’s home in Atlanta. Alberta’s father, known as A.D., had been a rural minster for years before moving to Atlanta to take over the struggling Ebenezer Baptist Church. By the time King Sr. and his bride arrived, the church had grown in size and influence, and King Sr. stepped in to a supporting role, eventually taking over as lead minister upon A.D.’s death in 1931.

Michael King Jr. was born on January 15, 1929, the namesake to his father, and the middle of three children, including a sister, Christine, and younger brother, Alfred Daniel Williams King. It wasn’t until a family trip to Germany in 1934 that the elder Michael, inspired by the Protestant Reformation leader Martin Luther, changed his name to Martin Luther, as well as the name of his then-five year-old son.

The King children grew up in a stable and financially secure home. All three children took piano lessons from their mother and played sports. As a minister, King Sr. saw to his children’s religious upbringing, though King Jr. struggled with the concept of religion as a child. He had doubts and questions, generally feeling uncomfortable with the entire charade of worship and prayer imposed upon him by his father. It was accepted that, when he came of age, King Jr. would follow his father’s footsteps into ministry.

Accepted by everyone, that is, except King Jr. himself.

While this inner struggle shadowed his childhood, it wasn’t to say his younger days were bleak. Far from it, in fact. His parents were loving, he was intellectually gifted, and his education was far better than that received by the average child of his race. As a young child, he was unaware that simply having a different colored skin was an issue, and his parents did all they could to shield him from this fact of life in mid-20th century America.

But they couldn’t hide it forever.

King Jr.’s first significant foray into this unexpected aspect of life came when he started school. White playmates in his neighborhood, with whom he’d enjoyed countless afternoons of frivolity, were sent a different elementary school than the one he attended. Wanting to attend school with his friends, King was shocked to learn not only that he couldn’t, but that it was against the law. Jim Crow, his mother explained. And, although he accepted the what, even as a child he struggled with the why.

Another instance occurred during a simple outing to downtown Atlanta to buy a pair of shoes. He and his father were seated at the front of the store, awaiting help from the sales clerk. Tight smile on his face, the clerk–who was white–informed them he would be happy to help them…if only they would move to the back of the store.

It took a few minutes for the truth to sink into young King Jr.’s mind. It was because of the color of their skin. They were being forced to move simply because of the color of their skin.

It was a shame and righteous anger King Jr. would never forget. But what stuck with him even more was his father’s response to the injustice. The elder King didn’t shout. He didn’t scream. He didn’t resort to physical violence.

But he didn’t just sit there and take it, either.

“We’ll either buy shoes sitting here or not at all.”

When the clerk still refused service, King Sr. simply took his son’s hand and left the store.

It was a life-changing moment for King Jr. He could no longer ignore the truth of the world. His eyes had been opened to the injustice of Jim Crow, to the plight of those like himself…and to the courage of his father. The elder King preached against Jim Crow, not just because of its effects on those of his race, but because he saw it as an affront to God’s will. But he didn’t just preach. He was active in the local chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and led a successful campaign to equalize the salaries of black and white teachers in Atlanta.

A gifted student, King Jr. graduated from high school early and enrolled in Morehouse College at age 15. Still unsure about his path in life but desperate to make a difference, King found guidance in Morehouse president Benjamin E. Mays, who watered and cultivated the seeds King Jr.’s father had planted all through his young life. Through him, King Jr. began to understand the role Christianity could play in enacting social change–reshaping hearts would go much further than bruising bodies or burning buildings, a radical departure from the style of the Civil Rights movement thus far. Finally discovering the faith his father had tried to instill in him many years ago, King Jr. became an ordained minister before graduating with a degree in sociology in 1948.

After Rosa Park’s refusal to give up her seat on the bus in 1955, King Jr. got his chance to put this new idea into practice. In place of violence, he urged, instead, a boycott–a boycott that ended up lasting 382, during which thousands of African-Americans were forced to walk to and from work in each day and in which King Jr. was harassed and his house attacked–but that ultimately ended up in legislation that lifted the law mandating segregation on public transportation.

Peaceful defiance had worked. And it had created snowball effect across the South that eventually led to the nation’s capital where King Jr. shared with the masses his dream for a better America.

A dream that began all those years ago in a shoe shop in downtown Atlanta, planted by a poor sharecropper turned minister who refused to believe man’s law could triumph over God’s.