From an ambitious vision on paper to a grand metropolis, Washington DC boasts a rich history. What was once a swampy landscape, the nation’s capital, is now an internationally recognized seat of American power as envisioned by the American leaders who, back in the 1780s, longed for a proper “federal city” to match the sprawling urban centers of Europe.   A Compromise The United States Capitol Building under construction. Photographed by John Plumbe between 1840 and 1850. Source: Library of Congress   It is perhaps fitting that the location for a “federal city” from which the head of state and United States Congress would run the new nation would come out of a compromise. As with the ratification of the Constitution, the Southern and Northern States and their representatives could not agree on a permanent national headquarters. Before 1791, the capital moved frequently from city to city, which included Annapolis, Philadelphia, and New York. The latter served as the location for the nation’s first inauguration on April 30, 1789, when George Washington was sworn in as the first President of the United States.   Congress had decided on the formation of a permanent capital as far back as 1783, but apart from agreeing that it was to be named Washington to honor George Washington and be part of a new District of Columbia, honoring the explorer Christopher Columbus, the two national geographic regions could not agree on much else. Because the capital was likely to attract a significant amount of business and its surrounding population, exerting a certain amount of influence on its social, political, and economic fabric, the Northern and Southern states wished to have the city within their own respective regions.   As neither side would give in, in 1790, Secretary of Treasury Alexander Hamilton, to have the agricultural states accept his proposed financial program, which on the surface appeared to benefit the North, struck a deal with the South’s leading representative in the Federal Government, Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson. In return for the federal government assuming the Revolutionary War debts, which the South mostly paid up and not the North, but would now be dispersed between both regions equally, the Southern Congressmen agreed to place the capital along the Potomac River, on land carved out of parts of Maryland and Virginia.   L’Enfant Has a Vision L’Enfant-McMillan Plan of Washington DC from the Historic American Buildings Survey. Source: Library of Congress   While the representatives agreed that Philadelphia would serve as the nation’s temporary capital until the new city was ready, Congress wasted no time asking the nation’s first president to choose a proper place. In January 1791, George Washington, a former surveyor, chose a plot of land less than 20 miles from his plantation at Mount Vernon. The American president promptly hired Major Pierre Charles L’Enfant, a French engineer and veteran of the Revolutionary War, to design and build the “federal city.” Together with American surveyor Andrew Ellicott and an African American mathematician, Benjamin Banneker, the men set off to create a city modeled on the great urban centers of Europe.   The Capitol Building was the city’s focal point; the Presidential Mansion (White House), placed on one of the topography’s highest points, overlooking the Potomac River, and the city streets would spread out from the Capitol like rays, surrounding public squares. Overly ambitious, L’Enfant quickly overexerted his budget on turning the swampy area into his vision, clashing with government officials. Having forced a local landowner off his land without prior approvals, the Frenchman was forced out and replaced with his assistant, Andrew Ellicott, in 1792. Turning L’Efant’s dreams into reality began that same year with construction on the White House, the first and oldest building in Washington. George Washington laid the cornerstone of the new Capitol Building a year later.   A Nation’s New Home The President’s House, Washington D.C., January 1817 by Benjamin Henry Latrobe. Source: Library of Congress   The United States capital officially relocated from Pennsylvania to Washington DC in 1800, once construction ended on the North Wing of the Capitol Building. The first president to begin his term in the new “federal city” was Thomas Jefferson, following a brief stint in the nearly-finished Presidential Mansion by John and Abigail Adams. Historian Eric Foner’s Give Me Liberty: An American History (2009, 2nd edition, p. 288) paints a vivid picture of the nation’s capital on the day the third president moved in: “The city, with its unpaved streets, impoverished residents, and unfinished public buildings, scarcely resembled L’Enfant’s grand plan.”   As the entire federal staff conducting the day-to-day running of the country from Philadelphia consisted of only 126 people, the move to the new capital was not all that difficult. Still, none could escape the dichotomy. Where Philadelphia was the seat of American culture and one of its oldest cities, Washington’s unpassable muddy roads and scarcely more than twenty buildings left much to be desired.   The president’s home would officially earn the moniker, the White House, following its reconstruction after the sacking of Washington by the British during the War of 1812, which left the brick mansion burned to a crisp and in need of a new coat of, this time, white stucco. To this day, and apart from brief periods when the building had been under renovation, each American president and their family had called the White House “home” for the duration of their terms.   Changes and Challenges The White House, Washington DC, 1860, painting by V. Foulquier. Source: The White House Historical Association   By all metrics, if any had existed, Washington DC’s growth into L’Enfant’s vision of a great urban center was slow. With private development lagging, the city lacked basic infrastructure and never quite grew in population. It was not until the American Civil War (1861-1865) that the federal government’s wartime expansion spurred population growth, and the capital became a major metropolitan center for military action and government administration. Now a proper government center and finally recognized as such, Washington DC witnessed unprecedented growth. Ten years after the conflict nearly tore the United States apart, the capital’s population boomed by seventy-five percent.   The sudden influx of residents led to much-needed infrastructure improvements, and soon, street cars, sewer systems, and essential utilities spread out across the district. The Federal government added to Washington’s landscape with the new construction of the Washington Monument and the Library of Congress.   As with the Civil War, the capital witnessed massive growth during World War I with the expansion of the federal government’s role on the world’s stage, opening many jobs. Business followed the population trends, and by the end of the Great War, Washington had added another 100,000 people to bring its population to 450,000. Following the trend, the capital’s total population numbers would grow to over 600,000 by the conclusion of World War II in 1945—a number close to its current statistic of 681,683 residents in 2024.   The Home of the American President The White House during the Civil War when Washington DC saw one of its most significant population growths in history. Source: White House Historical Association   One of Washington DC’s most significant roles is that of the address belonging to the nation’s most powerful individual and its commander-in-chief, the American president. The White House has not always been the sprawling complex we see today—or try to see through the tall metal gates surrounding its grounds. While early presidents such as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison made only a few landscape or furniture changes, James Monroe and Andrew Jackson ordered the construction of the White House’s first additions, the South Portico and North Portico, respectively, to accommodate the growing number of visitors.   Because the presidential workload increased with America’s role in the world following the Spanish-American War and the acquisition of an overseas empire, the White House could no longer accommodate the growing staff and administration. In 1902, President Roosevelt oversaw the building’s first major modern renovation by adding the West Wing, which provided a dedicated office space and separated the president’s living quarters from his everyday administrative tasks. Part of the addition was the creation of the Oval Office, which quickly became a symbol of the presidency by providing the POTUS with a dedicated space to conduct official business.   Since President Harry Truman and, later, First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy spearheaded major structural and cosmetic updates, the White House continues to serve as a functioning seat of American power while moonlighting as a living museum that offers tours to the public.

  At a time when the British Empire was expanding, becoming an unassailable empire across the world, Benjamin Disraeli rose from a relatively humble background to enter the most prestigious parts of British society.   Along the way, he gained powerful allies, including Queen Victoria, and became prime minister of the most powerful country in the world at the time.   His legacy is one of failure and success, of bitter defeat and glorious triumph.   Early Life of Benjamin Disraeli Isaac d’Israeli (1766-1848) (after John Downman) after Sir Martin Archer Shee. Source: National Trust via ArtUK, Wikimedia Commons   On December 21, 1804, Benjamin Disraeli was born into a middle-class Jewish family living in Bloomsbury, London. He was one of about 25,000 Jews living in England at the time, while the total population of England was 8.3 million.   His family was of Sephardic descent, although Benjamin did have some Ashkenazi ancestors. His parents were Isaac D’Israeli and Maria Basevi. He had an older sister, Sarah, with whom he had a close relationship, and two younger brothers, Ralph and James. Another brother, Naphtali, died in infancy.   While the United Kingdom was a good deal more socially progressive than many other European countries, anti-Semitism was still very much an issue when compared to the levels of equality today. In the realm of politics, which Disraeli would later enter, Jewish members of Parliament had been a feature since the late 1800s, but doing so required a Christian oath to be taken. This practice continued until 1858, when it was changed with the Jews Relief Act of 1858.   The Commercial Docks by George Cooke, 1827. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Benjamin received a decent education. At the age of six, he went to a privately run dame school in Islington and then went on to Rev John Potticary’s School, a preparatory school in Blackheath, where he was a boarder.   In 1817, Isaac renounced Judaism after an argument with his synagogue and had his children baptized into the Church of England. Benjamin was 12 at the time. He went on to study at small private schools. He was bitterly disappointed that his two younger brothers attended the prestigious Winchester College, a public school* known for producing renowned politicians from its ranks of students. *Note that what is called a “public school” in England can cause confusion in the rest of the world. It refers to an elite private school, generally associated with the upper classes. After his schooling, his father organized for his son to work as a clerk for a law firm, Swain, Stevens, Maples, Pearse, and Hunt. A while later, he left the firm and enrolled in Lincoln’s Inn with the intention of becoming a barrister. This, however, would never materialize. He was simply not suited to the work and was advised that he would be better served if he took up a literary career.   Disastrous Business Decisions The first edition of Vivian Grey by Benjamin Disraeli. Source: Raptis Rare Books   Benjamin Disraeli’s early adulthood was spent paying back huge amounts of debt. He articled for a firm of solicitors, and with his profits, he speculated in South American mining shares, investing everything he had and then some. He lost it all and was driven into debt so badly that he would take more than a decade to recover his losses.   Desperate to recoup his finances, he took further risks, which failed and put him further into debt. He convinced a friend of his father, publisher John Murray, to launch a daily newspaper, The Representative. The enterprise collapsed, and not being able to pay his share of the capital, Disraeli fell afoul of John Murray.   Disraeli struck back by writing a novel, Vivian Grey (1826-1827), which he published anonymously. The novel tells the story of the business venture and makes a mockery of John Murray. When Disraeli was unmasked as the real author of the work, he received widespread criticism, further damaging his already tarnished reputation.   Detail of a retrospective portrait of Benjamin Disraeli by Sir Francis Grant, 1878. Source: National Trust   His financial situation and the hatred he received from his social circles impacted Disraeli significantly, and he suffered a nervous breakdown, shutting himself off from the world for four years. During this time, he wrote another novel, The Young Duke, published in 1831. In 1830, he decided to travel and spent 16 months in the Mediterranean and the Middle East. His time abroad gave him a healthy outlook towards foreign relations, which influenced his policies later in life.   Entry Into Politics Union Jack. Source: needpix.com   Disraeli’s entry into politics had been held back by his father’s choice to have him study as a lawyer and by the fact that he was not born into the right circumstances. Politics in the United Kingdom at the time were dominated by the aristocracy, and for Disraeli, as a bourgeois Jew, there was little hope. Despite converting and being a practicing Anglican, Disraeli could not shake off the bigotry.   He nevertheless used his eloquence and skill with the written word to ingratiate himself into the right circles and found that he had the ability to significantly raise his standing in political circles. After unsuccessfully contesting several elections as an independent, Disraeli sought success by joining the Conservative Party.   Shylock by John Mortimer Hamilton, 1776. Source: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York   His primary opponents, the Liberals, referred to him as “Shylock,” referencing a Jewish usurer who serves as the principal villain in Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice. Despite his inadequate beginnings, Disraeli found success and, at the age of 33, became a member of Parliament. During this time, he continued writing novels but also turned his attention to writing political propaganda.   Upward Trajectory Queen Victoria, ca. 1880. Source: Library of Congress   In 1837, Disraeli won a seat in the House of Commons, and thus had successfully navigated himself into the center of political life of the British Empire. The future, for him, looked bright. With his skill as an orator, he won much respect from his peers, and Disraeli set his sights on becoming the prime minister. In 1839, Disraeli married Mary Anne Wyndham, a widow with a substantial income. He improved his social standing by doing so. It seemed apparent that he had married her for her money, especially since she was 12 years older than him, but he did develop a great affection for his wife.   She was not naive to his intentions and would later claim that if he could marry her again, it would be for love.   With his powerful connections, he made friends and garnered many supporters who, along with the considerable wealth owned by his wife, helped pay off Disraeli’s debts.   He encountered a setback when Conservative leader Sir Robert Peel was elected prime minister. Disraeli had hoped Peel would offer him a seat in his cabinet, but Disraeli was overlooked. This caused a breach between the two men.   Nevertheless, Disraeli continued his upward trajectory. He served as Chancellor of the Exchequer three times under short-lived minority governments formed by the Earl of Derby. In this position, he had to write many letters to Queen Victoria detailing the goings-on in parliament. Disraeli’s flare for writing served him well, and once boring letters were turned into interesting reads. By these letters, Disraeli won the favor of the queen.   Portrait of William Ewart Gladstone by Franz von Lenbach, 1874. Source: Wikimedia Commons   In 1868, Derby retired from politics, and Disraeli was sworn in as the new prime minister. He was not long in this position, however. He lost the general election later that year, and Liberal leader William Gladstone became the new prime minister.   From his position as leader of the Conservative Party, Disraeli began a new era in British politics, creating sharp divisions and clearly defined lines between the ideologies of the two most powerful parties. Eventually taking a strong-handed approach, he became seen as a powerful and diligent man who was clearly capable of turning the Conservative Party into a more effective tool of governance.   He was a strong defender of the monarchy and the House of Lords and supported the consolidation of the British Empire. These issues were constantly under fire from radical Liberals, and Disraeli became a powerful icon of the right wing of the political spectrum.   Disraeli as Prime Minister The freshwater canal at Ismailia, part of the Suez Canal, photographed by Francis Frith ca. 1856-1860. Source: Wikimedia Commons   In 1872, Benjamin Disraeli’s wife died of cancer, and Disraeli’s financial situation worsened as a result. In her will, she left vast amounts of her fortune to other family members. Disraeli, nevertheless, threw himself into his work and campaigned tirelessly for the Conservative Party. In the 1874 general election, he won a resounding victory, garnering almost 54% of the national vote. Disraeli was 70 years old at the time.   While Gladstone had been harshly critical of Queen Victoria, treating her as an institution, Disraeli treated her as a human being. This won him great support from the queen, and the two formed a solid friendship.   Disraeli fought hard to improve the living conditions across the class spectrums of the United Kingdom. The Artizans’ and Labourers’ Dwellings Improvement Act, aimed at improving the living conditions for those living in slums, gave local authorities the power to effectively clear slums and replace them with sanitary housing. The act was largely ignored, but it was heartily taken up in Birmingham, where the conditions of the working classes were significantly improved. The Public Health Act of 1875 aimed to codify and redress complicated laws on the issue of public health, and a series of factory acts were designed to limit the exploitation of labor.   The Climbing Boys Act of 1875 was also enacted, reinforcing bans on underage chimney sweeps. In addition, Disraeli took steps to decriminalize aspects of labor unions and strengthened the positions of workers across the country, giving them a bigger voice.   Disraeli in 1878. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Of prime importance, characterizing Disraeli’s term in office, was his foreign policy, which was seen as being highly effective. He acted quickly on information regarding the Suez Canal and purchased the shares owned by Khedive Isma’il Pasha of Egypt. The deal was a bargain, and Britain acquired an important strategic asset seen as a powerful piece of the Empire. Disraeli became hugely popular for this move.   His foreign policy also led him to assert Britain’s dominance in a highly delicate situation. In the Russo-Turkish War, the Russians attempted to force a treaty upon the Turks. Fearing for the safety of a route to India, Britain needed Russia to make a number of concessions at the Berlin Conference, where the treaty was submitted for review. All British demands were conceded, including the cession of Cyprus to the British Empire from the Ottomans. Disraeli returned home a hero.   The queen offered him a Dukedom, which he refused. He did, however, accept the Order of the Garter. This was on top of being the Earl of Beaconsfield and Viscount Hughenden of Hughenden, which were bestowed upon him earlier in his career.   Ingratiating himself further with the queen, Disraeli passed the Empress of India Act in 1876, which declared Queen Victoria, as the act suggests, the empress of India.   Foreign Blunders Isandlwana, the site where over a thousand British troops were massacred by Zulus. Image courtesy of the author   The latter years of his term were marked by disappointment and military blunders in Afghanistan and Zululand (later part of South Africa). In Afghanistan, the animosity between Britain and Russia came to a head. A Russian mission was sent to Kabul and was accepted against the hopes of the British, who feared Russian influence in the region. The British took military action and defeated the Afghans, after which they installed their own puppet ruler.   The Afghans later rebelled and killed Sir Louis Cavagnari along with his entire British mission. Although a successful punitive expedition would be mounted, the incident weakened Disraeli’s standing in parliament and in the public eye.   Meanwhile, in Zululand, the British declared war on the Zulus, expecting a quick and easy victory. In the early days of the campaign, overconfidence on the part of the British led to their biggest defeat ever by native troops at the Battle of Isandlwana. Despite the war concluding with ultimate British victory, the stain of Isandlwana would be remembered as the focal point, forever marring the image of British soldiery and strategic decisions.   Amid crop failures from bad weather and Disraeli’s failing health, the Conservative Party took a beating in the 1880 election. Disraeli lost the position of prime minister to Lord Cavendish of Keighley, the nominee standing for the Liberal Party. This also came at a time of economic downturn and increased taxes, which contributed to the Conservative Party’s defeat.   Final Days & Death Benjamin Disraeli from John Clark Ridpath et al., “Life and Work of James G. Blaine,” 1893. Source: Wikimedia Commons   After his election loss, Disraeli retired to his home and struggled with bouts of asthma, gout, and bronchitis. He kept correspondence with Queen Victoria and finished writing his final book, Endymion. He was regularly visited by friends and former enemies, including Gladstone, who visited him several times.   On the morning of April 19, 1881, Disraeli died at the age of 76. The issue of a state funeral was brought up but finally decided against by the executors of his will, as the crowds would have been too large to handle.   Protocol at the time barred the monarch from attending the funeral, but Victoria visited the grave site of her favorite prime minister four days later and laid a wreath by his headstone.   Statue of Benjamin Disraeli in Liverpool. Source: Wikipedia   Benjamin Disraeli, whatever his policies, represents the triumph of a man born into moderate means in a time when the aristocracy controlled the government. Not only did he take control of his destiny in this regard, but he successfully navigated his way through prejudice to achieve the highest post in the land. In doing so, he became a good friend of the queen and left a lasting legacy in British history.

  Although the airplane had been invented in 1903 and saw rapid adoption by the world’s militaries during World War I, air travel was far from luxurious during the 1930s. However, a class of luxurious lighter-than-air craft known as zeppelins captured the world’s attention: they were quiet, relatively stable, and gave passengers a far more stately way to travel. As the world struggled out of the Great Depression, would fleets of zeppelins become the new wave of air travel? Tragically, a single disaster on May 6, 1937 doomed this method of transportation. Filled with flammable hydrogen, the luxurious Hindenburg airship caught fire and was quickly ablaze as it attempted to dock over Manchester Township, New Jersey.   Setting the Stage: Infancy of Commercial Air Travel A photograph of an early passenger airplane circa 1920. Source: Royal Aeronautical Society   World War I showed that airplanes were highly versatile, and they were quickly put into use to carry both passengers and cargo after the war. Post-WWI airplanes delivered the mail and were popular in barnstorming shows, where the public could watch aerobatics. These early civilian flights were often dangerous, and there were many casualties. In 1914, the first passenger was flown in the United States, having to sit next to the pilot in the open-air cockpit. By the 1920s, enclosed passenger compartments had been developed, with the Ford Tri-Motor becoming popular with the public.   The late 1920s and early 1930s saw further improvements of passenger airplanes. Development of airliners, enclosed passenger planes, was hindered by the Great Depression, which hurt the revenue of early airlines. Some airlines, such as Delta, had emerged only months before the infamous 1929 stock market crash. Despite Ford Tri-Motors and German-made Fokkers of the 1920s being more comfortable than the open-air cockpits of the 1910s, air travel up through the early 1930s was still noisy, shaky, and not especially fast.   Setting the Stage: Demand for Luxury Travel A photograph of passengers enjoying spacious and luxurious accommodations aboard a zeppelin. Source: Colorado Public Radio   Air travel was intriguing, but many who could afford to travel long distances wanted luxury. Roads and trains were significantly improved during the 1920s, raising the expectations of comfort in traveling. The wealthy, therefore, were less inclined to travel by air if it would mean a substantial downgrade in comfort and luxury from a passenger train. For overseas travel, luxury liners provided deluxe amenities, at least for first-class passengers. Since the Gilded Age, the wealthy classes were accustomed to traveling in style.   By 1930, crossing the Atlantic Ocean still took at least four days by luxury liner. Improvements in air travel that could provide comparable comfort but allow for much faster travel than ships could make significant revenue. In 1927, an airplane piloted by American pilot Charles Lindbergh had famously flown nonstop across the Atlantic for the first time. What if passengers could also enjoy nonstop trans-Atlantic flights, all while surrounded by comfort?   Setting the Stage: Powered Airships A World War I era airship used by the United States Navy to conduct surveillance. Source: US Naval Institute   While the public mostly focused on airplanes, there were other forms of aerial transportation. The first crewed flight actually occurred in 1783 in a hot air balloon, with heated air providing enough buoyancy to raise a heavy basket. Although novel and initially very exciting, hot air balloons had some major weaknesses: they were difficult to control. In the 1850s, Henri Giffard of France pioneered the first true powered airships, which could be controlled on calm days. During the American Civil War, hydrogen-filled balloons were for aerial reconnaissance, carrying Union soldiers aloft to scout for Confederate movements and signal their compatriots on the ground to respond.   In 1884, the first flights occurred where a powered airship was controlled throughout the entire flight. Thirteen years later, the internal combustion engine was used to power airships for the first time, greatly increasing the amount of control. A few years later, Count Ferdinand von Zeppelin revolutionized airships with his rigid-frame design. His first powered airship, or Lutftschiff Zeppelin (LZ), was LZ-1, which was first test-flown in 1900. Future airships quickly took on count Zeppelin’s design of a long, tapered, rigid frame covered by fabric to enclose lighter-than-air gasses.   1910s: First Passenger Airships A photograph of LZ-10 Schwaben, the first successful passenger airship, which was flown in 1911. Source: Digitale Luftfahrt Bibliothek (Digital Aviation Library)   Quickly, Zeppelin-style airships were improved for greater stability and maneuverability. In 1911, the first passenger zeppelin, LZ-10 Schwaben, began service. Passenger service by Zeppelins was halted by the outbreak of World War I in 1914, with the airships being transferred into wartime service. During the war, German Zeppelins proved far more effective than French dirigibles, with the German airships almost doubling the speed of their Allied rivals. Zeppelins could be used for aerial reconnaissance and were considered successful. Some sixty were put into German service during the war; one set a record of 95 hours in flight on a mission to resupply German troops in East Africa.   After the war, passenger service returned in 1919, and newer Zeppelins saw further technical improvements. LZ-120 Bodensee, equipped with four powerful engines, could reach 80 miles an hour, making Zeppelins a close rival to airplanes of the era. However, Zeppelins were soon transferred to France under the Treaty of Versailles, which stripped Germany of its war-making equipment. Since Zeppelins had been used to bomb France and England from the air, they were seized as reparation payments. Only in 1926 was Germany allowed to resume building airships, which it did.   1919-1930s: Airship Successes A photograph of the frame of LZ-127, Graf Zeppelin, under construction in the early 1930s. Source: The Ohio State University   The success of the German-made Zeppelin, both in civilian transportation and as a military craft, was quickly noticed by the Allies of World War I, including the United States. In 1923, the first American-made Zeppelin was launched, with its design obtained by reverse-engineering a downed German Zeppelin that had dropped bombs on England in 1917. Around the same time, an American airship was inflated with nonflammable helium, though most still used cheaper and more available hydrogen. In 1924, the first use of vertical mooring masts allowed Zeppelins to dock without having to land, increasing ease of use.   Later that same year, flights began between New Jersey and Germany, with Zeppelins traveling some 5,000 miles. In 1928, Graf Zeppelin was completed, named after the deceased Count Zeppelin himself. On October 11, 1928, the airship completed the first trans-Atlantic passenger service by flying passengers from Germany to New Jersey. The initial journey was harrowing, with Graf Zeppelin damaged by storms and having to be repaired in flight by a team of four crewmen. When it landed on October 15, the craft was met with cheers; it had reduced by half the amount of time it took all previous passengers to cross the Atlantic by ship.   1932-36: The Hindenburg is Built A 1936 photograph of the newly-built LZ-129 Hindenburg over New Jersey. Source: Princeton University   The success of Graf Zeppelin, including a 1929 around-the-world journey, led to the creation of more passenger Zeppelins. A new class of airship was developed: the Hindenburg class, which would contain over seven million cubic feet of hydrogen. The choice to use hydrogen was made despite the catastrophic and fatal loss of a British airship, R-101, due to its hydrogen envelope catching fire in 1930. Additionally, Germany could not get enough helium, as the United States controlled all the known major deposits in the world.   As the Hindenburg was under construction, the Nazi government of Germany decided to help fund the project to showcase German technological prowess. By 1935, civilian control had largely been removed from the construction and operation of the Hindenburg. The completed airship was the largest craft ever to fly, powered by four 1,200-horsepower engines. In 1936, the Hindenburg was displayed to the public, including at the 1936 Olympic Games in Berlin. In addition to passenger service, the Hindenburg was intended to be a propaganda tool for Adolf Hitler’s regime.   May 6, 1937: Fateful Flight of the Hindenburg A photograph of flames erupting from the nose of the collapsing Hindenburg airship on May 6, 1937. Source: Voice of America (VOA)   In 1936, the Hindenburg began passenger service, carrying 51 passengers across the Atlantic in May. One year later, the sight of the giant airship was still a novelty, and its two-and-a-half-day trips across the Atlantic were legendary. On August 10, 1936, the Hindenburg set its speed record for a 43-hour flight between Frankfurt, Germany and New Jersey. Tragically, its 1937 season would be its last: on May 6, 1937, disaster struck. At 7:25 PM, while attempting to dock at Naval Air Station Lakehurst, New Jersey, the Hindenburg burst into flames while cameras were filming.   A photograph of the airship Hindenburg burning on May 6, 1937 over Manchester Township, New Jersey. Source: California Institute of Technology   Within 40 seconds, the entire envelope of the aircraft was engulfed in flames, and it plummeted to the ground. Thirty-six people were killed, and radio news coverage of the disaster coined the phrase, “oh, the humanity!”   There were hundreds of onlookers, as a massive crew was needed to handle a landed Zeppelin, and US military personnel were quickly on the scene to help with rescues. Amazingly, a majority of the Hindenburg’s passengers survived, but the dramatic news coverage, including video footage, was sensational. Security would be needed afterward to secure the crash site and keep away souvenir-seekers of the downed Zeppelin’s frame.   Reaction to the Hindenburg Disaster Before storm clouds overtook Europe, US President Franklin D. Roosevelt (above) sent condolences to German dictator Adolf Hitler after the Hindenburg crash. Source: Ashland University   The public was horrified by the sudden disaster, and the emotional coverage of the event by reporters on the scene added to the drama. Although previous airship disasters had not dented public support for Zeppelin travel, the Hindenburg was the first such disaster caught on film. As a result, millions of people in Europe and North America quickly learned about the disaster and came to view hydrogen-filled airships as potential death traps. Investigators struggled to determine the exact cause of the fire that engulfed the Hindenburg, and the complexity of the situation did nothing to calm the public. Eleanor Roosevelt, wife of US President Franklin D. Roosevelt, said the incident would not dissuade her from flying. Despite tensions between the United States and Nazi Germany, President Roosevelt sent a message of condolence to German dictator Adolf Hitler, who responded with thanks. The disaster effectively ended the airship era, with Hindenburg’s sister ship, LZ-130 Graf Zeppelin, the only one completed after the crash. It had been near completion on May 6, 1937, and was modified to use helium instead of hydrogen to prevent a recurrence of the deadly crash.   1938-World War II: Limited Role of Airships A World War II-era US Navy airship that was used to patrol shipping lanes to search for enemy submarines. Source: National Air and Space Museum at the Smithsonian, Washington DC   Increasing tensions between the United States and Nazi Germany meant Graf Zeppelin never received the necessary helium and reverted to using hydrogen. Its final flight occurred on August 20, 1939, less than two weeks before the start of World War II in Europe. Airships designed for passenger use were all declared scrapped by the German military in March 1940 and were dismantled to have their parts used for military equipment. The United States, by contrast, increased its use of airships during World War II.   Airships were used to patrol shipping lanes and coastal areas to detect enemy submarines. These were not true Zeppelins, which had a rigid inner frame, but rather blimps, which were non-rigid and inflatable. Unarmed blimps could spot enemy actions and report them to armed vessels that could respond effectively. Unlike World War I, airships were not used as offensive weapons due to their slow speed and unwieldy profile—they were easy targets for fighter planes and ground-based guns. After the war, the US maintained a small number of blimps, which were permanently retired in 1962.   Today: Any Future for Powered Airships? A graphic of a proposed future airship, which could combine lighter-than-air elements with the benefits of today’s drone aircraft. Source: Phys.org   In terms of speed, airships are no match for modern airliners. However, the environmental movement has brought back some support for the idea of using lighter-than-air craft. Airliners use a tremendous amount of fuel and emit significant amounts of pollutants. Some analysts feel that helium-filled airships could be greener than airliners. Although they would not be as fast, they could land on more surfaces and thus save money on the need for expensive airport infrastructure.   Combining new helium-filled airships with electric motors, perhaps even solar-powered, would make them an attractive investment for environmentally-conscious companies. Some argue that hydrogen, which is much cheaper to use than helium, could be safely used today. Another avenue for airships is transporting non-perishable cargo, which could travel slower, to areas that are difficult to access by road or train. Whether or not the late 2020s will see a return of commercially viable airships remains to be seen, but it could be an exciting development.

Can We Know if the Gospel is True? But these are written that you may believethat Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. – John 20:31 Professional golfer Tommy Bolt was known to be very particular about taking advice from his caddies. Once while playing in Los Angeles, Bolt told his caddy, "Don't say a word to me. And if I ask you something, just answer yes or no." At one point, Bolt approached the ball under a tree where he had a very tough shot to make. He looked at his caddy and asked, "Five-iron?" "No, Mr. Bolt." "What do you mean, ‘No'?" And with that, Bolt took out his five-iron and hit the ball two feet from the hole. He smirked at his caddy and said, "Now what do you think? You can talk now." "Mr. Bolt," the caddy said, "that wasn't your ball." It's possible to be very sure about something, yet still be far from the truth. All you have to do is take a look around the world today and see there are many people who are passionate about different things. And not everything can be true. So someone has to be wrong! This is why we can't base our search for truth on our passions. We have to look for what's credible. And with all the spiritual beliefs out there today, none of them is as credible as the one that claims Jesus was raised from the dead. It's as provable as any other event of its time! Christianity isn't right because you believe it. It's right because it's true, and that's why you can believe it! Prayer Challenge: Pray and ask God to confirm in your heart the truth of Jesus' teaching, the reality of His death and resurrection, and the presence of His Spirit in your life today. Questions for Thought: Think of something you really believed was true but turned out to be wrong. How did it make you feel? When we share Christ with others who have different beliefs from us, how can we present God's truth in a loving way? Visit the Senior Living Ministries website The post Can We Know if the Gospel Is True? – Senior Living – September 18 appeared first on GodUpdates.

The Fight for Mary, Queen of Scots’ Jewels JamesHoare Wed, 09/18/2024 - 06:00

So many marriage vows these days leave out staying together “in sickness and in health.” In my estimation, it’s a huge mistake.

In the late 1990s, a friend asked pastor Curtis Cook if he’d ever want to plant a church in Boston. Back then, the town that had been built by Puritans was only around 2 percent evangelical. Half the residents were Catholic, though in just a few years, The Boston Globe would break the news that the Catholic Church had been covering up sexual abuse for decades, and attendance and donations would begin to slide. At Harvard University, which had been founded to train Puritan clergy, 80 percent of students in 2000 were in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage. It was a tough field, but that wasn’t why Cook told his friend no. Curtis Cook / Courtesy of Hope Fellowship Church “I just didn’t think I was a church planter,” he said. A year or two later, Cook moved to Boston to do campus ministry. He loved it but soon experienced what his friend was seeing—there weren’t many good churches nearby that he could send his students to. One train stop out from Harvard was “a little Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) church that had been planted back in the ’60s,” Cook said. “It had dwindled down to about 15 people.” He tried to help out, preaching on Sundays and helping them think through their future: Should they shut down? No, they wanted to keep going. Should they revitalize? That was hard to do with no existing leadership. “Things were so desperate,” he said. “They were open to anything. We tried for nine months to find a planter and cast a vision. We brought a few people in, but no one was interested, and no one was buying the vision.” Slowly, Cook began to talk himself into the job. In 2003, without even having been an elder anywhere, and in a denomination that hardly existed in the Northeast, Cook jumped in. Hope Fellowship congregants at a retreat in 2018 / Courtesy of Hope’s Facebook page Within a year, Hope Fellowship Church had 40 people. Within four, they had around 200. Today, Hope sees about 300 each week. That’s a lot of growth in a state now tied for least religious in the country. But it’s even more remarkable when you know that Hope regularly sends people and finances to new churches, including three plants of their own. “They changed from inward-looking to outward-looking very quickly,” said Dane Helsing, a Hope associate pastor turned church planter. “Curtis has welcomed anybody who is interested in planting—he will never say no to a coffee meeting with anybody. He’s met hundreds of people over the last 20-plus years who want to talk about planting.” That’s one reason Cook can say he sees more healthy churches in a variety of denominations and networks across Boston and New England now than at any time in the last 25 years. “I’m from the Bible Belt, and I love it there,” Cook said. “But I can recommend more churches with confidence in the greater Boston area than in several Southern cities. These churches are trying to have some form of membership, faithful leadership, and expository preaching. It really is an encouraging time.” Backing into Boston Cook grew up in a charismatic, faith-healing church on the extreme end of Pentecostal. When he got to Oklahoma State University, he “was really immature,” he said. He fell in with the Baptist campus ministry, which mentored him, gave him a job, and directed him toward Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. “I was becoming more aware of what was going on elsewhere in the country and world,” Cook said. “I thought if I left my role in Oklahoma, there were plenty of people to do that. But there were other parts of the country with far fewer gospel workers. So I began to think about going someplace else.” One unreached place was the northeast United States. The 2000 U.S. Census showed the population was somewhere between 2 to 4 percent evangelical, depending on how narrowly you defined “evangelical.” In fact, when Mark and Connie Stump moved to Boston the year Cook replanted Hope, Connie “didn’t expect that [they’d] even find a Southern Baptist church.” Mark started working about a month before Connie and the kids arrived. The first week he was there, he visited Hope. “He called me right after church and said, ‘I found a great church with nice people, but there’s only 18 people there and they have no children’s ministry,’” Connie remembers. “We had a 1-year-old and 3-year-old and had just found out I was pregnant. So he said, ‘We can’t go there, but it was super nice.’” Bumpy Beginning Years later, someone asked Cook what he’d do over if he could. “Try to find a way to serve on the church staff of a healthy church before I tried to plant one,” he said. Because in the beginning, he had no idea what to do. The leading voices in evangelicalism were Rick Warren and Andy Stanley, but Cook didn’t have a megachurch in the suburbs. So he found sermons on cassette from a guy named Tim Keller who’d planted a church in New York about a decade earlier. “His ministry was super influential, even though I never met him,” Cook said. “I mooched ideas and attended a few conferences.” Curtis Cook in 2005 / Courtesy of Curtis Cook Cook also ran across 9Marks materials and went to a weekender conference at Capitol Hill Baptist Church. “I started to say things out loud that I thought we wanted to do, but I wasn’t sure how,” he said. I’m going to preach expositionally. We’re going to have meaningful membership. We’re going to have a plurality of elders. We’re going to plant churches. We’re going to invest in unreached people groups. Those sentences sound ridiculous when you’re saying them to a dozen people—three of them your wife and kids. How was Hope going to plant when she wasn’t even the size of a self-respecting church plant herself? How was she going to have more than one small group? Doggedly, Cook started working on the Sunday service. He knew from Keller that he should preach as if nonbelievers were there, so he’d say things like “If you’re here today and not a believer . . .” “There were only 17 people there,” he said. “They’re looking around like, ‘Who is he talking about? We think we’re all Christians.’” Any visitors who came didn’t usually come back. Hope was just too small. “It was slow and bumpy in the beginning, and we made a lot of mistakes,” Cook said. “But none of them was big enough to kill the church, fortunately.” Fools for Christ Mark and Connie tried several churches in the area. One was unfriendly, one felt too impersonal, and one was too far to drive. “We just kept coming back to Hope,” Connie said. The teaching was good, and the people were friendly. At first hesitant to commit because they weren’t sure where they’d buy a house, the Stumps eventually flipped that around and bought a house because it was closer to the church. “The church was very much like our family,” Connie said. Members ate lunch together, celebrated birthdays together, played games together. And together they worked like crazy to let their neighborhood know they were there. For example, before settling on the name Hope Fellowship, Cook went down to the grocery store with four names and spent two hours asking people which one they liked the best. (Hope won by a landslide.) Hope’s Christmas trees / Courtesy of Curtis Cook Next, “one of the guys thought we should try giving away Christmas trees,” Connie said. “Because Mark and I are not very creative, we were like, That will never work.” But somebody found a Christmas tree farmer who’d donate 75 trees. And the church members papered the neighborhood with door hangers: If you want a free Christmas tree, call us. People did, and Hope members ended up delivering them in a nor’easter. That didn’t slow them down. They bought granola bars, added cards with the church’s information, and handed them out at the bus stops and subway stations. They did the same with packs of gum, coffee, and water bottles. Again, Mark and Connie were skeptical. That’s not going to work, Mark remembers thinking. That might be the dumbest idea I’ve ever heard. Until he talked to a newcomer after the service and heard he was there because of a granola bar. “It worked phenomenally,” he says now. “Because everybody thinks you’re selling something,” Connie said. “So when all they get is a bottle of water and not a conversation, they’re refreshed.” Some of them keep the card, and later, “when something in their life is upside down, and they haven’t been able to stop thinking about the weird experience they had with the church people, they think, Maybe I should go try that.” Hope members handing out water / Courtesy of Curtis Cook During tax season, Cook bought stamps and passed them out just outside the post office. The post office employees questioned him, but he wasn’t doing anything illegal, so they let him keep going. Hope also bought ad space on the train, using it to post a C. S. Lewis quote and the church information. “The Lord really used that to bring people in,” Mark said. “I think of Paul saying he’s willing to be a fool for Christ,” Connie said. “Curtis is also willing to be a fool for Christ. He’ll try anything.” “Still, the most fruitful way that we’ve reached people is through our people being on mission and sharing with and inviting friends, classmates, coworkers,” Cook said. “God is kind. There were always enough positive glimmers of someone curious about the faith or someone eager to grow as a disciple to keep me going.” Planting Hope didn’t have to find a place to worship; they were in a building that had been paid off by previous church members. But it wasn’t huge—it only seats 220—and as Hope grew, her leaders began to look around for larger spaces. “We looked on numerous occasions,” Mark said. “We even put down an offer on one building, but we got outbid.” Cook added a second service; for a while, he even tried a third. Hope Fellowship Church in Cambridge / Courtesy of Hope’s Facebook page “Because we didn’t have room or find a building to buy, that propelled us into church planting earlier than we would have,” Connie said. Today, that seems like a natural decision. But back then, planting in New England was hard, especially for a denomination rooted in the South. “I moved to New England in November 1993,” wrote SBC pastor Terry Dorsett. “Going to associational meetings was sometimes depressing because it seemed like the pastors all had celebrated ‘low attendance’ day instead of ‘high attendance’ days. At one point I was the chairman of the mission committee in one of our New England associations and for three years in a row every single one of our mission churches had failed to survive.” Looking back, Cook can identify a few challenges church planters were facing. “My amateur observations were first, that there were basically very few, if any, healthy local churches a planter could come into and be sent out of,” Cook said. “Now almost nobody plants without coming to a local church in the area, doing a residency or internship, and having time to adjust. And then they’re sent out, which is absolutely appropriate and helpful.” Second, back then the SBC’s policy was to help with funding for two years, which was great if you were planting in, say, Oklahoma. At the end of two years, you’d probably have enough members to be self-sustaining. But in the Northeast, two years might net you only 35 people. That’s a good start, Cook said, but not many supporters recognized that it would take much longer to establish a self-funding church in New England. He asked his supporting churches to spread his two years of support over four years. For Hope, that was enough. By then, they’d constituted and were ready to try a second campus, Tim Keller–style. “We rented space across the river in Brookline and had a Sunday evening service there,” Cook said. “I preached, the band played, it was Hope Fellowship Coolidge Corner. But we didn’t have a fully developed plan of the end game. Does it stay part of Hope? Do we spin it off?” When Cook’s friend Bland Mason came to do a church planting residency at Hope, he took over the plant and named it City on a Hill. Then he went on a church planting tear, starting seven churches in eight years. Hope commissioned its second plant in September 2015. / Courtesy of Dane Helsing Hope kept at it too. They added two more daughter churches and sent funding and people to a handful more. “Rather than trying to plant a church of 3,000, we thought if we could plant 10 churches that were 300 people each, we’d be able to reach more people that way,” Cook said. Those small churches would also be “more contextual and more reproducible, because not many guys have the skill set it takes to pastor a church of 3,000. But we can find guys who can pastor a church of 40 to 300 people.” Cook always keeps that before his people. At quarterly members’ meetings, Hope members hear from mission partners and church planters. In the weekly pastoral prayers, Cook prays for other churches and unreached people. During budget meetings, Hope’s leaders give more than 20 percent of her income away to missions. “They continue to welcome people in—they always have summer interns and church planting residents,” Helsing said. “It’s the ongoing open-handed generosity of welcoming in anybody who wants to learn or experience life in a missional church or who wants to talk about church planting.” It seems like he’s always running into people who know each other because they both knew Cook. “I see the missional ripple effect of Hope,” he said. Churches in New England In 1962, eight churches formed a small network in New England. Today, the Baptist Convention of New England has 388 churches. More than a third have been planted since 2010. And that’s not counting the growing number of gospel-preaching churches in other networks and denominations. Simeon Trust workshop at Hope in February 2024 / Courtesy of Curtis Cook’s Facebook page “We are grateful for all the ways God is working here—we are seeing a slow, steady and very significant awakening through the ministries of hundreds of small and faithful churches,” said Paul Buckley, who planted King of Grace Church 45 minutes north of Hope in 2002. Like Hope, King of Grace has also planted three churches. “Today, many towns and cities of New England have one or more gospel-loving churches,” Buckley wrote for The Gospel Coalition. “Most sections of Boston are within walking distance of a church that proclaims Christ and models missional, gospel community.” Last year, when the SBC reported membership losses across the U.S., the notable exception was New England. Instead, from 2017 to 2022, membership in New England rose from about 27,500 to more than 30,000. The data “almost makes us a bit more resolute,” said Boston-area church planter Aaron Cavin, after sharing it at a local training for church planters. Twenty-five miles to the northeast, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary announced it was adding a church planting concentration. Massachusetts’s evangelical Protestant population is still tiny—just 3.65 percent in 2020. But that’s up from 2.37 percent in 2000 and 1.4 percent in 1980. “I feel really privileged to bear witness to what God is doing through Hope all these years,” Connie said. “I could not in a million years have guessed I’d get to be near and see God work so beautifully.”

Many elder-led churches are broken. Think, for example, about these all-too-familiar scenarios. Laissez-faire elders: The elders are mere “yes men” to the lead minister. They look to him to be the star of the show and see themselves as gatekeepers there to ensure nothing excessive or terrible happens, and nothing happens too fast. Divided elders: The pastor is under attack by a new, dominant elder. Quietly but forcefully, he’s undermined the pastor and rallied a couple of elders to see things his way. Church division and pastor burnout are just around the corner. Micromanaging elders: The elders are active and hands-on. But their hands are on everything. Alongside matters of pastoral and theological significance, they discuss minor things like the coffee machine and staging for the Christmas carols event. They’re overwhelmed and behind because each issue they face has to be worked out from scratch. There’s no big picture of a gospel church in front of them, just a hundred separate issues that need to be addressed now. To these scenarios, dozens of others could be added: elder-led churches where there’s unresolved conflict, a slow-moving bureaucracy, ineffective busyness, lone-ranger pastors, narcissistic leaders, or gospel-stifling traditionalism. This litany of failure can make it look as if eldership itself is the problem. Pastor-led churches make progress; elder-led churches don’t. If, however, these church scenarios are examined through a biblical lens, it becomes clear the problem isn’t eldership per se but the way many elder teams work. The Scriptures, by contrast, unfold a picture of eldership that generates compelling and effective leadership for healthy, gospel-hearted churches. Pathway to Health Four themes in the Bible’s picture orient us toward what healthy elder-led churches look like. 1. Value eldership. Eldership is at the heart of God’s leadership plan for his people. Elders are prominent throughout the biblical narrative, with some 100 Old Testament references to elders and a further 60 in the New Testament. Elders were appointed in every church (Acts 14:23) to be pastors (shepherds) and overseers of the flock. Eldership is at the heart of God’s leadership plan for his people. The entire biblical narrative shows that eldership shouldn’t be thought of as an exclusively Presbyterian thing, a pragmatic thing, or a bureaucratic thing—much less a problematic thing—but as a deeply biblical thing. But eldership will only work well in a church when it’s valued by all: the pastor, the elders, and the whole congregation. 2. Serve in leadership. The Bible is crystal clear: the work of elders is primarily the work of leadership. As shepherds, they lead, feed, protect, and provide for the flock. As overseers, they oversee the life and ministry of the church. The strong emphasis on godly character in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 is there because only those who are spiritually mature can provide the kind of leadership God calls them to. Elder-led churches will only be healthy when the council of elders embraces this reality. They’re not simply a board of governance, a board of reference, or a board of gatekeepers; they’re a team of shepherd-leaders. 3. Work together. God intends that elders work together for the health and well-being of the church. The Bible’s focus is never on the work of an individual elder but on the body of elders. Each man, individually, must be qualified for the task, but the task is undertaken together. The wisdom of a plurality of leaders can be seen in multiple ways. Together, the elders share the large responsibility of shepherding God’s flock. They can support and encourage each other; provide accountability; rein in any tendency toward arrogance or folly; bring the gifts and insight of several rather than just one person to bear on the complexity of church life; share the load; and pray, weep, and dream together. Elder-led churches only work well when the dynamics of team play are delineated, with each elder bringing distinct gifts and perspectives and no one dominating, sidelining, or railroading anyone else. 4. Lead with clarity. The elders’ combined leadership should bring clarity to the church’s life and ministry. Prayerfully, from God’s Word, they’re to set the trajectories of the church as a whole. This plays out on a number of key fronts. Of primary importance is ensuring the church is theologically robust—that it’s teaching and defending the faith once for all entrusted to the saints. But orthodoxy alone isn’t enough. On that foundation, elders must ensure the church is aligned with God’s mission to make disciples of all nations. The Bible’s focus is never on the work of an individual elder but on the body of elders. They must articulate a clear gospel vision of what the church is to be and do. They must ensure the church’s values and culture reflect that biblical vision, and they’ll need to put in place big-picture strategies for advancing this vision in church life. They’ll also need to oversee, but not micromanage, the day-to-day ministry practice of the church as they equip the saints for works of service. Elder-Led Vision The elder-led church will only be effective when these concerns drive the elders’ conversations and when their work is undertaken not as detached directors but as godly men active in church life and engaged in people’s lives. These four themes begin to unpack the Bible’s rich understanding of the work of elders. It’s a vibrant calling. Those who aspire to it desire a noble task. As the elders together submit themselves to the Lord, to his Word, and to each other, they can work side-by-side as a team to shepherd a healthy flock.

Don Carson focuses on Jesus’s message to the church in Laodicea and the parable of the 10 virgins to illustrate the importance of understanding biblical texts within their historical and cultural contexts. Carson teaches the following: How Jesus uses Laodicea’s economic symbols to critique spiritual lukewarmness How the contextual reading of Scripture is an essential precursor to careful biblical exegesis The symbolism behind Jesus’s foot-washing and what it means for us today