White Privilege

When we migrated to America twenty-five years ago, we were often told that we were not seen as being black. We understood then, that that was a statement of acceptance. Acceptance by others who determined that our conduct was not a threat to their way of living.

I believe those who affirmed us were genuine. They were unconscious of assuming and displaying a posture of privilege. On one occasion, I was visiting a woman who was dying in hospital. During that visit, my presence was questioned by a white nurse. The white husband of the dying woman sensed the racist tone in the nurse’s question. Although he was not being addressed, the husband answered – “He is our pastor.” With that, the nurse left the room.

In coming to my defense, that husband and two other white friends who were present, were utilizing their inherited privilege. Simply put, they were raised in a society that attached significance to their ethnicity. They tapped into that inherited right and defended me.

Those memories of life in Midwest America returned while watching a video someone sent me a few days ago. The story in the video was told by a black woman. She and her sister-in-law grew up together. Her sister-in-law was half white and half black with blue eyes, “whiter than most white folks.” Along with their spouses and children, they shared wonderful, multicultural family times. 

Both women were in the check-out line at a neighborhood supermarket. Kathleen, the sister-in-law, checked her groceries first. The cashier who was a strawberry blond, freckled and extremely warm, engaged Kathleen in pleasant small talk. During the friendly exchange, Kathleen prepared and submitted a personal check for her groceries. “She picked up her groceries and waited for me a few feet away.”

“It was now my turn to be served. The pleasant demeanor that Kathleen got was gone. My groceries were checked and I got my check book ready to pay.” On submitting my check I was told that I needed two pieces of identification.”

My ten-year old daughter who was witnessing this ordeal began to cry. “Mommy, why is she doing this to us?” I am now trying to figure-out how best to react to this ordeal. Behind me are two elderly white women – I know I had to avoid becoming the typical “angry black woman.”

I chose to avoid conflict and submitted the two pieces of identification that the cashier requested. I could not imagine that this situation could get worse until the cashier pulled out the “bad checks book.” She wanted to see if I was listed among customers with a bounced-check record.

By this time, I am thoroughly humiliated and my daughter is sobbing with embarrassment. My sister-in-law Kathleen had seen enough. She intervened.

“Excuse me! Why are you doing this?” “What do you mean?” replied the cashier. “Why are you taking her through all of these procedures, why are you doing this?” “Well, this is our policy.” “This is not your policy - you did not do this to me.”

“Well, I know you,” said the cashier. “No! No! She has been living here for years. I have only lived here for three months,” said Kathleen. At this point the two white elderly ladies exclaimed, “Oh, we can’t believe what this cashier has done with this woman – this is totally unacceptable.”

On hearing the commotion, the manager walked over – “Is there a problem here?” “Oh yes,” replied Kathleen. “There is a problem here and this is what happened.”

Although Kathleen was half black and half white, she used her white privilege to point out an injustice. Her stand for justice influenced others around her. Kathleen knew, that because of her color, she inherited rights from society – in other words, white privilege. She used that right to educate and correct an injustice.

Like me, had this black woman reacted, she would have been perceived to be another angry black. It was the person with the assumed privilege to make the difference. However, to make such a difference, requires courage and an awareness that one's pigmentation does not make one superior.

Not until we continue to have authentic conversations and apply biblical truth to our discourse, would we begin to see things differently. When non-Jewish Christians were being treated as second-class believers, Paul insisted, “there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28).

Agreed, white privilege can be destructive, and more so among Christians. In Christ, Christians should celebrate ethnic differences and not use such differences as badges of privilege.

PREJUDICE!

He was dark-skinned and of Indian decent. He sat alone on the four-seater couch in the waiting room of the doctor’s office. He appeared stoic, but was well-dressed and was obviously awaiting service. Within minutes the man was joined by a white-skinned family – father, mother and early teenage daughter.

There was just enough space for everyone to sit on the couch. The young lady showed discomfort having to sit next to the Indian gentleman. She exchanged seats with her mother. Even with that change, the father seemed uncomfortable. He then chose to stand, leaving a vacant seat between his wife and the dark-skinned gentleman. Although silent, the family’s body language was very loud.

The family appeared relieved when a nurse invited them to see the doctor with whom they had an appointed. It became increasing uncomfortable when the nurse extended a similar invitation to the gentleman. While in his office, the doctor recapped the delight his staff felt, following the successful kidney transplant of their daughter.

However, that joy was short-lived as the doctor introduced the Indian gentleman as the kidney-donor who saved the life of the teenage daughter. The tension and embarrassing looks were obvious as the gentleman acknowledged the doctor’s introduction.

That online video ably illustrated the heinousness and ridiculousness of prejudice – a preconceived opinion not based on reason or actual experience. The word prejudice comes from the Latin word praejudicium - prae, meaning before and judicium, meaning judgment.

Prejudice usually implies an unfavorable prepossession and connotes a feeling rooted in suspicion, fear, or intolerance. It implies an unreasoned and unfair distortion of judgment in favor of or against a person or thing.

At the root of many of the national social problems we are facing at the moment is prejudice. Imagine someone feeling superior to another because of the color of their skin – how ridiculous.

In less than five minutes one can learn that variations in human skin color are adaptive traits that correlate closely with geography and the sun’s ultraviolet (UV) radiation. Melanin, the skin's brown pigment, is a natural sunscreen that protects tropical peoples from the many harmful effects of ultraviolet (UV) rays. Skin color has absolutely nothing to do with superiority. The same thing is true of ethnicity, texture of hair or physical features.

That kind of ignorance is at the core of our social problems – our ignorance continues to breed prejudice. Racism is one of the outcomes of this ignorance. Like in our opening story, while living with the kidney of a dark-skinned person, you stupidly consider yourself superior to that person.

In addressing the Athenians in Acts 17, Paul stressed, “from one man God made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and He determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live” (Acts 17:26).

Paul knew that the Athenians prided themselves on their heritage from the soil of their native Attica – but this pride was ill-founded. They needed to know that all mankind was one in origin – all created by God and all descended from one common ancestor. Such enlightenment removed all imagined justification for the belief that Greeks were innately superior to barbarians.

The late F.F. Bruce was correct, “neither in nature nor in grace – neither in the old creation nor in the new, is there any room for ideas of racial superiority.” Race is not biological. It is a social construct. There is no gene or cluster of genes common to all blacks or all whites.

Hence, to ignore these truths is to act on a foundation of ignorance – and that feeds prejudice. For a while, step back and assess the carnage caused in America within the last week. Whereas some are blaming the availability others are blaming incendiary rhetoric from politicians.

Death of Marriage?

On June 23 my wife and I celebrated 43 years of marriage. Our celebrations included a 1200-mile road trip from Missouri to Florida. On the actual day of our anniversary, we awoke to a Jamaican breakfast, prepared by the woman who catered for our wedding in 1973 – how nostalgic!

However, much of that nostalgia fades in light of the growing decline of traditional marriage in America. A recent study from the Pew Research Center found a number of interesting trends in their most recent look at marriage in America. For one, the study found that after years of declining marriage rates, the percentage of Americans who have never been married has reached a historic high point.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, within the last ten years, homes headed by married couples increased by 7%. Within the same period, homes headed by unmarried couples increased by 72%.

According to Sam Sturgeon, president of Demographic Intelligence, “the United States has been experiencing a “cultural retreat from marriage”. Factors like economics, education, careers and decline in religious interest contribute significantly to the decline in traditional marriage.

However, we need to ask ourselves, is traditional marriage significant enough to warrant defending? Some in human potential movements view marriage as a potential threat to individual fulfillment. Proponents of the new psychologies contend that marriage thwarts the highest forms of human needs – autonomy, independence, growth and creativity.

According to Waite and Gallagher, in their volume, The Case for Marriage, “the search for autonomy and independence as the highest good blossomed with the women’s movement into a critique of marriage per se, which the more flamboyant feminists denounced as ‘slavery and legalized rape, tied up with a sense of dependency.’”

That assessment does not describe what my wife and I have experienced in marriage. Our advanced studies and experience have given us reason to believe that our marriage has been good for our children, their children and the wider community.

Valuable research confirms that by a broad range of indices, marriage is actually better for you. Married people live longer, are healthier, accumulate more wealth, feel more fulfillment in their lives, enjoy more satisfying sexual relationships, and have happier and more successful children, than persons who remain single, cohabit, or get divorced.

Civil society benefits from stable marriages. Marriage, and by extension, families, are themselves small societies. These societies establish the network of relatives and in-laws and sustain a key ingredient of the “social capital” that facilitates many kinds of beneficial civic associations and private groups.

The virtues acquired within the family – generosity, self-sacrifice, trust, self-discipline – are crucial in every domain of social life. Children who grow up in broken families often fail to acquire these elemental habits of character.

Children, whose parents fail to get and stay married are at an increased risk of poverty, dependency, substance abuse, educational failure, juvenile delinquency, early unwed pregnancy, and a host of other destructive behaviors. When whole families and neighborhoods become dominated by fatherless homes, these risks increase even further.

Strong, intact families stabilize the state and decrease the need for costly and intrusive bureaucratic social agencies. Families provide for their vulnerable members, produce new citizens with virtues such as loyalty and generosity and engender concern for the common good.

Given the clear benefits of marriage, I believe the state should defend traditional marriage against the intrusion of alternative family structures that are incapable of producing comparable social outcomes. The public goods uniquely provided by traditional marriage are recognizable by reasonable persons, regardless of religious or secular worldviews.

The Witherspoon Institute, in its publication, Marriage and the Public Good, accurately states that “in virtually every known human society, the institution of marriage has served and continues to serve three important public purposes. First, marriage is the institution through which societies seek to organize the bearing and rearing of children.

Secondly, marriage provides direction, order and stability to adult sexual unions. Lastly, marriage civilizes men, furnishing them with a sense of purpose, norms and social status that orient their lives away from vice and toward virtue.”

Long before these studies, the Bible referred to marriage as honorable (Hebrews 13:4). In its original form, “honorable” implies, valuable, priceless, worthy of respect and deserving of esteem. For the last 43 years, I have found that to be true.

Steph Curry’s Jesus

Steph Curry and I have a few things in common. Apart from gender, we both love basketball, family and Jesus. In receiving the Most Valuable Player (MVP) award last year, Curry unapologetically said, “First and foremost I have to thank my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ for blessing me with the talents to play this game, with the family to support me, day in, day out. I’m his humble servant right now and I can’t say enough how important my faith is to who I am and how I play the game.”

In responding to Curry’s faith, some bloggers expressed the view that the Jesus in whom he trusts, is more hype than history. In other words, Curry’s faith is based on a mythical figure, and not a real person. One blogger went as far as to suggest that other than the antique New Testament, no other ancient literature acknowledged the existence of Jesus.

Really? Let us first examine the kind of evidence we will need to verify the existence of Jesus apart from what is cited in the New Testament. Unlike some items in science, historical data cannot be repeated. Historians must appeal to different kinds of evidence to be able to validate historical data. Agreed, we do not have anything Jesus wrote, neither do we have any photographs others took.

In other words, physical evidence appears to be very rare. Actually, for almost 2,000 years we’ve gone without archaeological evidence of Jesus. Then we came across the first-century ossuary (bone box) of Jesus’ brother, James, the head of the Jerusalem church. The fragile limestone burial box bears the inscription, “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus.”

According to the publishers of The Brother of Jesus by Shanks and Witherington, “the ossuary and its inscription are now regarded as authentic by top scholars in the field; they represent the first visual, tangible, scientific evidence of Jesus’ existence.” Another useful resource on the physical evidence of Jesus is in New York Times Bestseller, Bart Ehrman’s volume, Did Jesus Exist?

Like in the case of most ancient persons, historians look for information about the person and not from the person. Historians look for written sources, preferably sources that are relatively near the date of the person or event that they are describing.

It is important that the various sources corroborate with what each of the other sources has to say. In addition, it is important to know that the various sources are independent of one another and do not rely on each other for all of their information.

Unlike today, record keeping was rare when Jesus was around. Scholars believe the vast majority of people in the ancient world could not write. This explains why the Bible so often states, “he who has ears to hear, let him hear.” Writing was done by hand and writing materials were very expensive.  

However, it is important to understand that the absence of much written stuff and physical evidence, do not necessarily mean the non-existence of personalities like Jesus. Agreed, the situation becomes a bit more complicated when our modern-day understanding of a journalist was not imbedded among the disciples of Jesus.

However, Luke makes it clear in his opening verses that “many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from first were eyewitnesses...” (Luke 1:1-2). We do not know if those earlier writings to which Luke referred, were ever included in the New Testament canon.

What we do know, is that a number of non-Christian writers wrote about persons who knew and were greatly influenced by the life of Jesus. The first surviving reference to Jesus by a non-Christian, non-Jewish source of any kind appears in the writings of Pliny the Younger (62-113 CE/AD).

Tacitus (55-117), another Roman historian is even more explicit in his Annals. A third Roman writer who referred briefly to Jesus and Christians is Seutonius (70-160). According to the late Professor Bruce Metzer, “the early non-Christian testimonies concerning Jesus, though scanty, are altogether sufficient to prove that Jesus was a historical figure who lived in Palestine during the early years of the first century. Today no competent scholar denies the historicity of Jesus.”

The earliest non-Christian witness to the historicity of Jesus was the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus. He was personally involved with some of the most important events that he narrated, especially in his eight-volume work, The Jewish Wars.

Interestingly, none of the non-Christian sources cited here is as reliable as the New Testament. There is more than enough evidence to believe that the Jesus in whom Steph Curry has placed his faith, actually lived on earth in the first century. Should one choose not to believe this, does not nullify Jesus’ existence, and our need to acknowledge Him as Lord of our lives.

Good Friday?

A number of studies confirm that crucifixion is one of the worst forms of capital punishment in history. The only thing worse than crucifixion was what the British called, Hanged, Drawn and Quartered. This barbaric act was introduced in 1351 and was used for men convicted of high treason.

It is believed that crucifixion began among the Persians. Alexander the Great introduced the practice to Egypt and Carthage, and the Romans appear to have learned of it from the Carthaginians. Although the Romans did not invent crucifixion, they perfected it as a form of torture and capital punishment.

Crucifixion was designed to produce a slow death, with maximum pain and suffering. Historians agree that it was one of the most disgraceful and cruel methods of execution and usually was reserved for slaves, foreigners and the vilest of criminals. For this reason, Roman law protected Roman citizens from crucifixion, except in the case of desertion by soldiers.

Prior to crucifixion, Roman law required victims to be flogged. The usual instrument for flogging was a short whip with several single or braided leather thongs of variable lengths. For scourging, the victim was stripped of his clothing, and his hands were tied to an upright post. The severity of the scourging was intended to weaken the victim to a state just short of collapse or death.

Although the severity of Jesus’ scourging was not mentioned in the gospels, Peter’s use of the word wounds, would suggest the result of harsh scourging (1 Peter 2:24). The Roman soldiers, amused that this weakened man had claimed to be a king, began to mock Jesus by placing a robe on His shoulders, a crown of thorns on His head, and wooden staff, as a scepter in His right hand.

According to an extensive study done in 1986 On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ, it is believed that the severe scourging, with its intense pain and appreciable blood loss, most probably left Jesus in a pre-shock state. The physical and mental abuse meted out by the Jews and the Romans, as well as the lack of food, water and sleep, contributed to Jesus’ generally weakened state.

After the scourging and the mocking, at about 9:00 o’clock on Friday morning, Jesus was so weak that He could not carry His cross for the 600 yard-trip to the place of crucifixion. Throughout this ordeal, the Roman soldiers and civilian crowd taunted Jesus. 

At about 3:00 o’clock that Friday afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, bowed His head and died. Because of the Sabbath in a few hours, the Jews did not want His body to remain on the cross. In order to verify His death, one of the soldiers pierced the side of Jesus with an infantry spear. This piercing produced a sudden flow of blood and water.

How could such barbarity lead Christians to call this day Good Friday? The use of the adjective good does not describe the barbarity of crucifixion. Rather, it describes the outcome of what was intended to bring disgrace and shame.

Christians believe that the barbarity of the crucifixion was consistent with the severity of the punishment Jesus was undergoing. When one considers that that punishment was commensurate with the crime, one is prone to ask what crime could warrant such severe punishment.

According to the apostle Paul, “Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures/Hebrew Bible” (1 Corinthians 15:3). In another letter to the Corinthians, Paul contended, “God made Him/Jesus who had no sin to be sin for us...” (2 Corinthians 5:21. Even Peter, a close buddy of Jesus said, “Jesus Himself bore our sins in His body on the tree...” (1 Peter 2:24).

Jesus’ contemporaries knew that His cruel death was not because of wrongs He did – He was dying for others. Paul indicated that he got that information from the Hebrew Bible, written hundreds of years before Jesus was born. Paul was very likely thinking of Isaiah who wrote, “But he (Christ) was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed” (Isaiah 53:5).

Paul was confident that the death of Jesus affected his way of life. His preaching focus was on the death of Christ. His lifestyle was shaped by his understanding and appropriating the death of Christ. In his letter to Christians from Galatia, he said, “I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me” (Galatians 2:20).

Does the death of Jesus mean anything to you? Do you understand that He did not die because He was overpowered by the Romans? He died as a sacrifice and not as a victim – that is the message of Easter. And that is why it is appropriate to say Good Friday.

THE CROSS: Embarrassing?

In his book, Fresh Wind, Fresh Fire, Jim Cymbala tells the story of a soloist at Brooklyn Tabernacle. She was invited to sing at a church and was told in advance, “We want to ask you not to sing any song that mentions the blood of Christ. People feel uncomfortable with that, and our goal here is to be user-friendly.”

Uncomfortable about the blood of Christ? Similar discomfort was experienced in the first century. In his letter to the Corinthians, Paul noted that the cross was “a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles...” (1 Corinthians 1:23). Today, many churches even find the frequent observance of the ordinance of communion to be a distraction in their up-beat worship services.

In her book, The Crucifixion: Understanding the Death of Jesus Christ, Fleming Rutledge, contends that preaching on the cross has been sidelined. She believes that this is so because “people don’t want to hear about sin, suffering, evil or judgment.”

Instead, we want a happy Christianity. One without the consequences for sin. A Christianity with minimal need of reflection. The crucifixion invites us to reflect on the heinousness of sin and the heavy price Jesus paid for it. Forgiveness of sin is not amnesty. Forgiveness is possible because Someone paid the price for sin - death on the cross.

As an atheist, Christopher Hitchens could not accept this Christian doctrine. On one occasion he said, “I find something repulsive about the idea of vicarious redemption – you can throw your sins onto somebody else, vulgarly known as scapegoating.” Hitchens understood the message of the cross, but he was not prepared to embrace it.

The cross of Jesus Christ differentiates Christian faith from religion in general. Religion tells us what we must do in order to achieve forgiveness. Christianity insists that forgiveness has already been paid for on the cross. Paul contended, whereas Jews demanded miraculous signs and non-Jews (Greeks) looked for wisdom, he preached Christ crucified – a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to non-Jews.

As a matter of fact, Paul argued that God’s power was evident in the cross of Christ. Whereas others depended on oratorical skills and philosophy to make an impact, for him, it was the cross of Christ that enshrined the power to make an impact.

To the Corinthians Paul said, “When I came to you...I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified” (1 Corinthians 2:2). He was convinced that what others considered foolishness, was God’s demonstration of power.

In essence, Paul was contending that our natural understanding of power was different from God’s. In addition, whereas we view death as coming to the end of the road, God viewed the death of Jesus as the beginning of new life. But why would God use the horrific death of Jesus on a cross to bring new life?

Paul provides two answers. The first, no one other than God could get the credit. Absolutely no one is able to bring new life from death – that is a demonstration of divine power. Paul’s second reason is that no one can boast about what he or she accomplished. In essence, new life in Christ cannot be acquired by any human effort. It is unmerited.

The Bible calls this grace – undeserved favor. In his letter to the Ephesians Paul said, “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith, and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God, not by works, so that no one can boast” (Ephesians 2:8).

But couldn’t God have accomplished grace by some other means, probably, not as severe as the cross? The logic is simple – punishment must be commensurate with the crime. Because of the severity of sin, severe punishment was inevitable. Hence, the worst sinner could find God’s grace, because of the cross.

If we could have paid for our sin, then what would happen to those who could not afford to pay? Also, if we could have paid for our sin, we could boast about our ability to help ourselves. Now, such boasting is not possible, in that new life in Christ is a gift. Since it is free, one may ask, wouldn’t it then cheapen the gift? The question implies that my contribution increases the value of God’s gift.

In his letter to the Galatians, Paul argued that any attempt to add to what Jesus Christ accomplished on the cross, nullifies the value of the gift – “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned” (Galatians 1:8)!

For this reason, I would argue like Paul, there is no user-friendly version of new life in Christ. Without the cross, we are presenting another gospel, not the one God offers to anyone who seeks it.

The 17th century hymn-writer Isaac Watts got it when he wrote: “Forbid it Lord, that I should boast, save in the death of Christ my God; All the vain things that charm me most, I sacrifice them to His blood.”

Carnival in Trinidad

A few days ago my wife and I hosted two brothers from Trinidad. They were both returning to their homes in the United States after participating in carnival in Trinidad. Our discussions included an analysis of carnival. We reflected on the history of the festival and its impact on the soul of the nation.

According to the National Library and Information System Authority, “carnival in Trinidad and Tobago is one of grandeur, color, revelry, rhythm, and gaiety. It is truly an all-inclusive national festival. It is by far the most spectacular event on the nation’s calendar.”

There is no theatrical event that can mobilize mass-participation in any Caribbean island as carnival in Trinidad and Tobago is able to do. It is believed that as many as 15% of the 1 ½ million residents, actively participate in carnival. Months of planning and competition culminate in two days of glitter and dance. The creativity reflected in costumes is unparalleled in the Caribbean. The rhythm of calypso music and the unique contribution of the steelpan combine to present one of the greatest theatrical shows on earth.

Apart from the opportunities to be creative, some believe, carnival brings emotional relief to many persons. According to Darryl Barrow (Caribbean Journal of Religious Studies), “There are many people who regard carnival as a good escape releaser. People have been experiencing stress, strain and certain inhibitions – carnival allows people to release their pent-up energies and desires.”

Interestingly, what Barrow sees as an asset in carnival, Ismith Khan, in The Obeah Man, sees as symptoms of deep-seated social malaise. There seems to be an underlying irony of the carnival spirit. Derek Walcott may well be alluding to this in his poem Mass Man. Here Walcott exposes carnival as a kind of sham behind which we may discover images of pain and despair.

While living in Trinidad, I heard much of this pain reflected in calypsos. Whereas one can choose to focus on calypso as a work of art, and glory in the calypsonian’s ability, the reality of what is communicated cannot be ignored. Pain is too often trivialized in order to solicit laughter. To use frivolity as a coping device for pain can be compared with using Band-Aid to relieve cancer.

The increasing use of alcohol during carnival may also be another coping device as well as a vital part of entertainment. This excessive use of alcohol is compounded by an upsurge of unwanted pregnancies and increasing incidents of sexually transmitted diseases.

In light of this, it is not enough to rejoice in the creative opportunities carnival brings and ignore the social price the nation is force to pay. When asked about this anomaly, one popular calypsonian told his interviewer that he was an entertainer and not a pastor. In essence, his role was to ensure laughter, not serious reflection.

Ash Wednesday, the day following two days of carnival, is no laughing matter. The abandoned costumes, piles of debris and inebriated bodies, paint a picture of gloom, so unlike the picture of laughter that prevailed hours earlier. When added to the cases of marital unfaithfulness, unwanted pregnancies and sordid list of social evils, one is left to ask - is this the price a small nation should pay for joy?

This quest for joy is not limited to carnival in the twin-island republic. Similar festivals in Latin American countries pursue the same outcomes. Both in Trinidad & Tobago and in Latin America, there is a strong Roman Catholic association with carnival.

The festival is routinely celebrated on the eve of Lent – a period characterized by prayers and much abstinence. It would seem then, that the observance of carnival was intended to serve as a last fling, before the holy season of reflection. In Catholic tradition, Ash Wednesday is one of the most popular and important holy days in the liturgical calendar. The practice includes the wearing of ashes on the head.

The events of Ash Wednesday would suggest that participating in carnival is sinful and therefore requires forgiveness and penitence. But is this religious ritual enough to bring about forgiveness?

Some evangelicals would contend that a personal faith in Christ often leads to a disinterest in carnival. Stories of conversion from former carnival enthusiasts would seem to suggest that their conversion resulted in new interests and different expressions of joy.

Some believe this new way of living is what Paul had in mind when he wrote to the Corinthians. He said, “... anyone united with the Messiah (Jesus) gets a fresh start, is created new. The old life is gone; a new life burgeons! Look at it!” (The Message 2 Cor. 5:17).

The absence of carnival from the Christian worldview, leaves one with the need to find more appropriate ways to express joy. Ways that do not require alcohol to sustain or stimulate joy. Ways that will utilize creativity, melody, movement and glitter. Honestly, we’ve got some work to do.