Since the shocking revelation last week of Hollywood boss Harvey Weinstein’s decades-long reign of habitual sexual harassment and assault on coworkers and associates, during which he allegedly paid off at least eight women to keep quiet about the abuse, a source close to the nation’s most popular late night hosts revealed that they are all so disgusted by Weinstein’s harmful and deviant actions that they refuse to even mention his name.
“Even though they lampooned people like Roger Ailes and Bill O’Reilly after similar allegations, what Weinstein has done is so grotesque and at odds with their values that they won’t so much as utter his name on their shows,” the source with direct access to Jimmy Kimmel, Seth Myers, Jimmy Fallon, Stephen Colbert, and James Corden said, adding that it is “utterly detestable” to them that one of the most powerful men in Hollywood used his immense wealth and influence to shame and silence his victims for three decades.
“Some of them tried to practice pieces on this scandal in their show rehearsals, and it was just too much for them. They ended up either too physically ill to continue, or in a puddle of tears out of grief for the many victims of this monster,” he also revealed.
The anonymous source also added that Weinstein’s vocal support of myriad liberal causes, his unabashed support of feminism, and his participation in activities such as women’s marches, only made the scandal that much more horrendous—until it was more than the popular TV personalities could bear.
“They’re just hoping their silence shames him,” he added.
Yup. Hollywood hypocrisy.
In case you didn’t know- Calvin was buried in an unmarked grave; Zwingli was hacked to bits and his body burned and the ashes scattered, and Luther was buried in the Church. So we know where Luther’s buried, we know where the Papists slaughtered and dismembered Zwingli, but we don’t know where Calvin was laid to rest. So this is an interesting foray into the quest for Calvin’s grave:
All the details are here. I apologize that I won’t be there, but in January I’ll be in Hong Kong teaching J-Term to our wonderful students and our exceptional community.
I’ll be back to SOTS for the Winter Meeting in 2019. I presume. DV.
Luther’s concern throughout the book [On War Against the Turks] is to teach men how to fight with a clear conscience. In so doing he develops two major points. There are, he says, only two men who may properly fight the Turk [Muslims, in our terminology]. The first of these is the Christian, who by prayer, repentance, and reform of life takes the rod of anger out of God’s hand and compels the Turk to stand on his own strength. The second man who may wage war is the emperor. The Turk has wrongfully attacked the emperor’s subjects, and by virtue of the office to which God has appointed him, the emperor is duty-bound to protect and defend the subjects with whose care God has entrusted him.*
It’s a pretty sharp booklet. Theologically, it gives priority to prayer and repentance so that war is avoided because God’s wrath is assuaged. A brilliant theological move really. And it was published on 9 October, 1528.
*Martin Luther, Luther’s Works, Vol. 46: The Christian in Society III, ed. Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, Hilton C. Oswald, and Helmut T. Lehmann, vol. 46 (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1999), 159.
Unless and until you become a disciple of the Crucified and risen Lord: denying yourself and taking up your Cross to follow him.
Yes. That’s right.
“Balthasar of Waldshut has fallen into prison here—a man not merely irreverent and unlearned, but even empty. Learn the sum of the matter. When he came to Zurich our Council fearing lest he should cause a commotion ordered him to be taken into custody. Since, however, he had once in freakishness of disposition and fatuity, blurted out in Waldshut against our Council, of which place he, by the gods, was a guardian [i. e., he was pastor there], until the stupid fellow disunited and destroyed everything, it was determined that I should discuss with him in a friendly manner the baptising of infants and Catabaptists, as he earnestly begged first from prison and afterwards from custody. I met the fellow and rendered him mute as a fish. The next day he recited a recantation in the presence of certain Councillors appointed for the purpose [which recantation when repeated to the Two Hundred it was ordered should be publicly made. Therefore having started to write it in the city, he gave it to the Council with his own hand, with all its silliness, as he promised. At length he denied that he had changed his opinion, although he had done so before a Swiss tribunal, which with us is a capital offence, affirming that his signature had been extorted from him by terror, which was most untrue].
“The Council was so unwilling that force should be used on him that when the Emperor or Ferdinand twice asked that the fellow be given to him it refused the request. Indeed he was not taken prisoner that he might suffer the penalty of his boldness in the baptismal matter, but to prevent his causing in secret some confusion, a thing he delighted to do. Then he angered the Council; for there were present most upright Councillors who had witnessed his most explicit and unconstrained withdrawal, and had refused to hand him over to the cruelty of the Emperor, helping themselves with my aid. The next day he was thrust back into prison and tortured. It is clear that the man had become a sport for demons, so he recanted not frankly as he had promised, nay he said that he entertained no other opinions than those taught by me, execrated the error and obstinacy of the Catabaptists, repeated this three times when stretched on the rack, and bewailed his misery and the wrath of God which in this affair was so unkind. Behold what wantonness! Than these men there is nothing more foolhardy, deceptive, infamous—for I cannot tell you what they devise in Abtzell—and shameless. To-morrow or next day the case will come up.”*
*Samuel Macauley Jackson, Huldreich Zwingli: The Reformer of German Switzerland (1484–1531) (Heroes of the Reformation; New York; London: G. P. Putnam’s Sons; Knickerbocker Press, 1901), 249–250.