And it’s ‘you’re’ not ‘your’. You’re welcome.
Daily Archives: 3 Oct 2018
Men and women answered thusly:
Men ask why women are so [upset], even guys with wives and daughters. Jackson Katz, a prominent social researcher, illustrates why. He’s done it with hundreds of audiences:
“I draw a line down the middle of a chalkboard, sketching a male symbol on one side and a female symbol on the other.
Then I ask just the men: What steps do you guys take, on a daily basis, to prevent yourselves from being sexually assaulted? At first there is a kind of awkward silence as the men try to figure out if they’ve been asked a trick question. The silence gives way to a smattering of nervous laughter. Occasionally, a young a guy will raise his hand and say, ‘I stay out of prison.’ This is typically followed by another moment of laughter, before someone finally raises his hand and soberly states, ‘Nothing. I don’t think about it.’
Then I ask the women the same question. What steps do you take on a daily basis to prevent yourselves from being sexually assaulted? Women throughout the audience immediately start raising their hands. As the men sit in stunned silence, the women recount safety precautions they take as part of their daily routine.
― Jackson Katz, The Macho Paradox: Why Some Men Hurt Women and How All Men Can Help
I love/ hate this text. It is infuriating. And it is meant to be. Because it’s meant to teach a very important lesson. To wit- the ‘justice’ of God doesn’t look like your justice and God doesn’t have to adjust his sense of right to appease you. The sovereign Lord of the universe can do as he pleases, whether you or I or anyone else likes it or not. Oh, and notice how none of the other Gospels include the story? Yeah, they didn’t like it either*.
“For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire workers for his vineyard. After agreeing with the workers on one denarius, he sent them into his vineyard for the day. When he went out about nine in the morning, he saw others standing in the marketplace doing nothing. He said to them, ‘You also go into my vineyard, and I’ll give you whatever is right.’ So off they went. About noon and about three, he went out again and did the same thing. Then about five he went and found others standing around and said to them, ‘Why have you been standing here all day doing nothing? ‘ ” ‘Because no one hired us,’ they said to him. ” ‘You also go into my vineyard,’ he told them.
When evening came, the owner of the vineyard told his foreman, ‘Call the workers and give them their pay, starting with the last and ending with the first.’ “When those who were hired about five came, they each received one denarius. So when the first ones came, they assumed they would get more, but they also received a denarius each. When they received it, they began to complain to the landowner: ‘These last men put in one hour, and you made them equal to us who bore the burden of the day’s work and the burning heat.’ “He replied to one of them, ‘Friend, I’m doing you no wrong. Didn’t you agree with me on a denarius? Take what’s yours and go. I want to give this last man the same as I gave you. Don’t I have the right to do what I want with what is mine? Are you jealous because I’m generous? ‘
“So the last will be first, and the first last.” (Matt. 20:1-16)
*It is my view that this story contains the Ipssisima verba Iesu. The difficulty with that view is the singular attestation of Matthew. Nonetheless, it is also my view that the other Gospel writers, if they knew of the text, found it so unpleasant that they simply ignored it. Naturally, I may be wrong in this assessment.
But I doubt it.
Walter Koehler wrote a fine essay for Zwingliana in 1930 on the colloquy which took place in Marburg at the behest of Philip.
„Um den Glauben wird der Streit gehen und um das Geheimnis des göttlichen Wirkens in uns” —• de fide erit contentio et de mysterio divinae operationis in nobis —, so schrieb im Frühjahr 1527, als das schon längst zusammengeballte Gewitter des Abendmahlsstreites zwischen Luther und Zwingli unmittelbar vor der Entladung zu stehen schien, der Süddeutsche Theobald Billikan nach Basel an Johannes Oekolampad.
The conclusion of the matter was agreement between the parties on 15 counts (though on the 15th they would continue to see things differently the moment the conference ended). They put their names on that agreement on 3 October, went home, and wrote very uncharitable things about each other.
If you’d like to read all about it, go here.
Below is the German copy of the Articles. In the Swiss edition, the Swiss Reformers signatures appear first.
Let me be clear: until Christians of all political stripes insist on the indispensable nature of character and refuse to give a pass to those who share their politics, but fail the character ???, the mission of the Gospel will be undermined and the world will subdue the church. — Allan Bevere
Mitchell Langbert of Brooklyn College Believes all Males Commit Sexual Assault, Or They Aren’t Real Males
In his own words-
Is this the kind of person Brooklyn College believes should be teaching????
Œcolampadius in his account of the Colloquy is very much milder than Luther and milder than Zwingli. He believed that “there was no victory on either side since there was no fighting or contending.” Brenz is very explicit in regard to the split which was so plainly manifested between the speakers, and which surprised and grieved the Landgrave. He says:
“Afterwards, when the meeting had been disbanded, the Prince tried every possible way to secure agreement between us, speaking to each one of us by himself without witnesses, and begging, warning, exhorting, demanding that we have regard to the Republic of Christ and put strife away. [Failing to secure the absolute submission of the Zwinglians] we decided with one voice that they were outside the Communion of the Christian Church, and could not be recognised by us as brethren and members of the Church. This our opponents thought very hard indeed.… But when the Prince also thought it hard we modified our decision so far as to be willing to recognise our opponents of the Zwingli and Œcolampadius following as friends, but not as brethren and members of the Church of Christ.”
Johannes… such a nice guy. Brenz, such a – well – Lutheran…
When Zwingli propounded his view of the Lord’s Supper at Marburg he defeated Luther’s. How? Because more Protestant / Reformed Christians now hold Zwingli’s view than Luther’s.
Remember- Baptists outnumber Lutherans in America by huge margins and Baptists are Zwinglians in eucharistic theology.
Poor Luther – a sad loser to this very day.
Sung to the tune of Frere Jacques-
Revelation, Revelation, 21:8, 21:8
Liars go to hell, liars go to hell,
Burn, burn, burn… burn, burn, burn.
I sing that song in my head every time a politician lies. Which, as you can imagine, is a lot.
It’s hard to know where to start with this nutbaggery. I’m sad for Britain.
Many thanks to the kind anonymous reader who sent us this gem: an unlisted video of Belinda McKenzie’s closing address at the recent party conference of the
Diarrhoea and Vomiting Democrats and Veterans Party, held 14–15 September in Barnsley.
We recently noted Belinda’s presence at the conference, as she introduced ex-police officer Jon Wedger to the podium. At that time we wondered what role, if any, Belinda was playing in the newly spawned party; in this video she (more or less) explains all.
The video is a veritable cavalcade of jaw-droppery.
‘A political party with real teeth’
What I particularly liked [about the D&V Party] were two things: direct democracy, and the other one is the fighting element of this party. Because I regard us as at war. I’m at war, anyway. And I’m fighting for the children, and our future. And so we need a political party with…
View original post 1,666 more words
Zwingli reached home on the 19th of October. In reporting the conference at Zurich he claimed the victory for himself. “The truth,” said he, “has so manifestly gained the victory that if the shameless and obstinate Luther be not beaten, there never was anyone beaten, although he never ceases boasting to the contrary.” Despite the boasting of both leaders, they refrained, as they had agreed to do, from the unseemly abuse in which they had so freely indulged previous to the conference.*
Luther too claimed the palm but he also suffered pretty acute depression on his way home. All in all, the conference was pretty much like presidential debates: no one changes their mind but it’s interesting to watch just so you can read the funny tweets.
*Samuel Simpson, Life of Ulrich Zwingli: The Swiss Patriot and Reformer (New York: Baker & Taylor Co., 1902), 207–208.
The next day, Sunday, Oct. 3, [the discsussion] was renewed.
Zwingli maintained that a body could not be in different places at once. Luther quoted the Sophists (the Schoolmen) to the effect that there are different kinds of presence. The universe is a body, and yet not in a particular place.
Zwingli: Ah, you speak of the Sophists, doctor! Are you really obliged to return to the onions and fleshpots of Egypt? He then cited from Augustin, who says, “Christ is everywhere present as God; but as to his body, he is in heaven.”
Luther: You have Augustin and Fulgentius on your side, but we have all the other fathers. Augustin was young when he wrote the passage you quote, and he is obscure. We must believe the old teachers only so far as they agree with the Word of God.
Oecolampadius: We, too, build on the Word of God, not on the fathers; but we appeal to them to show that we teach no novelties.
Luther, pointing again his finger to the words on the table: This is our text: you have not yet driven us from it. We care for no other proof.
Oecolampadius: If this is the case, we had better close the discussion. The chancellor exhorted them to come to an understanding.
Luther: There is only one way to that. Let our adversaries believe as we do.
The Swiss: We cannot.
Luther: Well, then, I abandon you to God’s judgment, and pray that he will enlighten you.
Oecolampadius: We will do the same. You need it as much as we.
At this point both parties mellowed down. Luther begged pardon for his harsh words, as he was a man of flesh and blood. Zwingli begged Luther, with tearful eyes, to forgive him his harsh words, and assured him that there were no men in the world whose friendship he more desired than that of the Wittenbergers.
Jacob Sturm and Bucer spoke in behalf of Strassburg, and vindicated their orthodoxy, which had been impeached. Luther’s reply was cold, and displeased the audience. He declared to the Strassburgers, as well as the Swiss, “Your spirit is different from ours.”
The Conference was ended. A contagious disease, called the English sweat (sudor Anglicus), which attacked its victims with fever, sweat, thirst, intense pain, and exhaustion, had suddenly broken out in Marburg as in other parts of Germany, and caused frightful ravages that filled everybody with alarm. The visitors were anxious to return home. So were the fathers of the Council of Trent, when the Elector Moritz chased the Emperor through the Tyrol; and in like manner the fathers of the Vatican Council hurried across the Alps when France declared war against Germany, and left the Vatican decrees in the hands of Italian infallibilists.
But the Landgrave once more brought the guests together at his table on Sunday night, and urged upon every one the supreme importance of coming to some understanding.*
*History of the Christian church (Vol. 7, pp. 642–644).
Grundlagen und Wirkung der Schweizer Reformation
Etwas ruhiger, aber nicht minder interessant, ist die Veranstaltung der Volkshochschule Zürich: Am Freitagnachmittag findet die Abschlussvorlesung der Ringvorlesung vom letzten Wintersemester statt. Die 8-teilige Reihe ging dem Einfluss nach, den die Schweizer Reformationsbewegungen auf verschiedene Regionen der Welt ausübten und beleuchteten die Religionskonflikte der Alten Eidgenossenschaft sowie ihre Folgen für die heutige Schweiz. Die letzte Vorlesung hält Prof. Dr. Peter Opitz zum Thema «Die Schweizer Reformation, ein Welterfolg». Im Anschluss sind die Hörerinnen und Hörer zu einem Apéro eingeladen.
Freitag, 5. Oktober 2018, 14.00 – 16.00 Uhr, Universität Zürich-Zentrum