#“kevin how often do you think about the roman empire” | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

lit-works · 2 months

Text

Pt 1.

--This fanfiction is a part of my 'Decades of Marvels' one-shot series that celebrates an era near and dear to me. This story is a love letter. First and foremost, to fellow comic book aficionado, artist extraordinarre, and fanboy Kevin Smith who wrote/started/directed the movie that shares this stories title. It is also an homage to nostalgia, and the most nostalgic generation so far. I shamelessly name-drop as many pop culture refs from the 90s as I can, including the OG MCU (90s X-Men, Spider-Man & Friends, The Fantastic Four animated series).

"Hey, Shogo, how was school today?" Jubilation Lee asked her adopted son as he entered their home on the island of Krakoa.

"lame! Mr.Summers is teaching stupid Quadratic Equations. But, it got me thinking about when he used to be your teacher." Shogo whined as he kicked off his shoes and sat heavily on the living room couch.

"Old Cyclops' mutant math, I remember the concept. He tried to teach me trigonometry." Jubilation recalled as she sat next to her son.

"Seriously? That's crazy. Anyways, do you remember the Danger Room's Shopping Mall Simulation?"

"Ah, the infamous Danger Mall -where Sentinel sales were always booming. No, I do not remember that one. Is that the exercise they had you running today?" Jubilation joked before becoming seriously curious.

"well, yeah, and I started wondering The X-Men had a place to hit up like that to buy stuff before people started ordering on Amazon. Like, was there ever just merchandise instead of a battle looming over the horizon?"

"You bet we did!! There was this one time, a peaceful day off, before I was a full-time X-Person, and I decided to check out a mall. But, you know your mom, trouble has it's way of finding me...even in the food court."

"wait, what's a food court?"

"Ermahgawd, you poor uncultured swine, so...

Once a mecca of American commerce, a gathering place for adolescent youth, and a nice place for an indoor stroll, the mall no longer holds the same place in our daily lives as it did in the summers of the '90s. In the heyday of the indoor shopping mall, one could buy a ham, watch a movie, haggle for a Gucci purse and cap off the day with a round of ice skating. Store fronts were elaborately decorated to look like barns and castles.

Malls across America were filled with seemingly lost or harried, or both, families navigating their way through these temples of consumerism, a long with playful teens in Jnco Jeans and South Park shirts, pink misfits and scene kids lighting up indoors, and the aged mall-walkers.

Families spent a large part of their miserable lives at shopping malls. For generations of Americans, there was no better way to pass time than to completely encapsulate themselves in retail outlets. Wrapped tightly in their warm blanket of commerce, they would loiter aimlessly for hours, often not spending a dime.

There was no greater monument to American capitalism in the latter half of the 20th Century than the mall. The history of the shopping mall can be traced back to the Roman Empire, where teenagers of the day surely milled about in their equivalent of Hot Topic and Spencer's gifts.

The first American shopping mall was built in 1826 in Providence, Rhode Island. Considering the coolest thing to do as a member of previous generation American teenagers was to fight in the wars of 1812, this was an absolute godsend.

The next great thing to happen to America's future adults was the advent of the automobile. The car shook up a number of things, including shopping malls. Shopping mall locations shifted from downtown areas to decentralized suburban spaces that were now accessible to the driving population.

Over a period of a half a century starting in the mid-50's, a staggering 1,500 shopping malls opened in the United States. Countless other mini-malls and strip-malls came into existence during this period as well.

The basic makeup of the new suburban shopping centers followed a very set pattern. Large chain department stores would serve as "anchors", familiar places that would drive traffic to the mall and thus the smaller stores located within the tile strewn floors. Anchors quickly became the key to a Mall's success.

The mall evolved into more than just a shopping center, adding other features than just retail outlets. The American populace could now take a trip to the mall and enjoy movie theaters, restaurants, and by the 80s, the newly ubiquitous video game arcade. By this time, the shopping mall had firmly become an entrenched part of American culture.

For decades, shopping malls appeared as the financial rocks. Individual stores would come and go, but the vacancy rates would always stay low.

And then something magical happened, the malls that teenage girls and soccer moms across the country could only dream of : the Mall of America in Bloomington, Minnesota!

Since opening it's doors in 1992, Mall of America revolutionized the shopping experience of tens of millions of visitors a year. A leader in retail, entertainment and attraction, Mall of America became one of the top tourist destinations in the country and is known around the world.

Back in 1982, the Minnesota Twins and Vikings relocated from the Metropolitan Stadium in Bloomington to the HHH Metrodome in downtown Minneapolis. This created an unprecedented development opportunity for 78 acres of prime real estate. Three years later, the Bloomington Port Authority purchased the stadium site and began entertaining proposals for development. Mall of America was chosen from four proposals, and on June 14th, 1989, developers ans local dignitaries broke ground. On August 11th, 1992, when Mall of America opened it's doors, 330 stores opened for business and more than 10,000 employees started their first day of work.

Mall of America now hosts more than 400 events annually, ranging from concerts, to celebrity appearances and fashion shows. Each year 40 million people from around the world visit the Malls generating nearly $2 billion each year in economic impact for the state.

Word had gone out! A once in a lifetime concert being held at the Mall of America in Minnesota: the interstellar pop sensation Lila Cheney was teaming up with America's disco diva Allison Blaire, The Dazzler! The power pair had embraced the grunge movement and would be singing as a duet with a newly formed band called The Resistance in a one-night-only event in the concert Hall of the mall...

4 notes · View notes

unknownfacelessfanfictions · 2 years

Text

Names

Okay, so, I am trying to create more diverse characters because I am so freaking tired of the typical american ( in rare cases brittish) girls who are whiter than snowwhite. ( I mean, I am probably paler than snowwhitetoo, but that's not the point)

I will not start a conversation on the fact that we definetly need more asian, latin american, european, african etc. etc. characters because I am trying this for myself. ( And before you start, yeah, it's not perfect, I don't know everything about every country, but I make hours of research and try to be at least a bit accurate). But to achieve that, I would ask for your help.

Because among other things, I am so tired of every character being named Tiffany, Ruby, Kevin, Chad, Jessica, Grace and so on. I am not saying that those are ugly names, because they are not, I think they are beautiful, but I want something new.

So, if you know any names, new or old, from your culture ( whatever this culture may be) I would be grateful, if you could help. It would especially be awesome, if those were a) names people nowadays would have and b) more unique or not so often used names. But I take everything I can. Last names are fine too or if you just explain how names work in your culture.

To do so, I will start with german names. It's gonna be a bit explicit but the more the better

Before we start, some names that are popular in german or are said to be german have latin origins. I don't know why, but I guess it's because during the Middle Ages the noble people all spoke latin ( at least the men) because e.g. the Bible was writtin in latin. Or maybe it was also, because parts of Germany were part of the roman empire, I don't know. Just be aware that they could have a latin origin

German Names:

Before we start, quick reminder:

In Germany our names are arranged like in a lot other countries, but I'm still gonna do it.

First Name

Eventual Second or even third name

Last name

After marriage one person usually takes the last name of the other one ( usually, especially in the past, the woman took the last name of the man). It is also possible to keep your last name or just add the last name of your partner to yours.

For example:

The couple ( Lina and Leo , random I know) decided to marry and agreed to take Lina's last name. Leo still wants to keep his too.

Lina Müller

Leo Fischer-Müller

Just wanted this to be put here as a reminder.

Also German names have boundaries to fullfill.

German first names must:

be recognized as proper names – they cannot be absurd or degrade the child in any way. ( so don't name your child rainbowdash, cupcake or something ike that)

not associate with evil (e.g., Satan) or be insensitive to religious feelings (e.g., Christus or Jesus).

not be a brand, a surname, an object or the name of a place.

indicate the child’s gender – if a neutral first name is chosen, then a second name must be added that is gender-specific.

must not cross genders – a boy’s name cannot typically be chosen for a girl and vice versa (with the exception of Maria, which can be placed as a boy’s second name).

Female Names:

The name is a bit older but I would still name my child Annika

Amelie

Origin: German

Meaning: Latinized form of the Germanic name Amala, a short form of names beginning with the element amal meaning "work"

Similar Names: Amalia, Amalie

How to pronounce: a·muh·lee

It's still a nice name and I would be fine naming my child Amelie

Adelheid

Origin: German

Meaning: The Germanic components of the name are adal (meaning "noble" or "distinguished") and heit (meaning "kind" or "being"). Adelheid could therefore be interpreted as "of noble nature".

Similar Names: Adalheidis, Alheydis, Adelais.

How to pronounce: ædɛlhajd (It's the best I could find. It would be better to search in the internet for more

It's a rather old name and I personally wouldn't use it nowadays because the chances that someones grandma or great-grandma would have it is very high and only a few people in Germany use it nowadays anymore

Agathe

Origin: German

Meaning: A kind natured woman

Similar Names: Agatha

How to pronounce: ah-gah-teh

Just like Adelheid a pretty name, but in my opinion quite old fashion

Leonie

Origin: German, French (also known as short version from Eleonore)

Meaning: lion

Similar Names: Leoni, Leonora, Leonia

How to pronounce: Leh-oh-nee

Absolutly a name that girls now still have and quite beautiful too

Hannah

Origin: Germn, English, Hebrew ( also known as short version from Johanna/ Johannah)

Meaning: Favor or Grace

Similar Names: Hannah, Hanne ( older)

How to pronounce: Hahn-nah

Beautiful and I know many girls that have this name, it was on the 15th place of the most popular first names in Germany in 2021

Male Names:

Maximilian

Origin: Latin

Meaning: The Greatest

Similar Names: "Max", Maximus, Maximilien

How to pronounce: mæ-kseeˈ-mee-lee-ahn

Beautiful name and I know a few people with that name. One of the mot popular name sin 2016

Julian

Origin: Latin (name is based on the Roman name Julianus, which was derived from Julius)

Meaning: downy and youthful

Similar Names: Julius, Julianus, Julia ( female)

How to pronounce: you-lee-ahn

Also a popular name and definetly useable for younger people

Kurt

Origin: German

Meaning: brave adviser

Similar Names: Curt

How to pronounce: basically how you pronounce it in english, just that you pronounce the u like you pronounce the o in do

It's an old name and I wouldn't use it nowadays, but still pretty

Ludwig

Origin: German

Meaning: famous warrior ( I think, it wasn't clear)

Similar Names: ?

How to pronounce: ( the u again like the o in do) lud-weeg

Very old, unlikely to use today, but who knows?

Last Names:

I couldn't possibly list all of them but here are some popular ones IMPORTANT: If you have an Umlaut (ä,ö,ü) don't just write a,o,u, it could change the whole meaning. Write this: ä = ae ü= ue ö= oe

Fischer ( Fisher)

Müller (Miller)

Meier/ Mayer

Schuster (shoemaker)

You can also use adjectives:

Klug ( smart)

Lanng ( long)

Kurz ( short)

Nett ( nice)

And in last case you can just use random words or even mix them together:

Sommer ( Summer)

Römer ( Roman)

Berg ( Mountain)

Eisfeld= Eis + Feld ( ice+field)

Blaufeder= Blau+Feder ( blue+feather)

#names #german names #cultures #names around the world #asian #chinese #japanese #indian #korean #russian #spanish #french #italian #romania #nigerian #swahili #scottish #irish #arabic

4 notes · View notes

shadowywerewolfqueen · 4 years

Text

History Project

“Winchester, Novak, you two are the last pair of partners. Alright everybody, you have the rest of the period to determine what your project is going to be on. Remember, you must get it approved by me before you can begin working,” Ms. Harvelle said to her senior AP history class.

Dean sighed at hearing who he got partnered with. Castiel Novak was not the worst person to get partnered with but he wasn’t even close to the top of Dean’s list. Dean looked at Benny, his top choice, and felt a surge of jealousy that he got paired with the school’s genius, Kevin Tran. Benny was guaranteed to get an “A” now. Dean grabbed his bag and walked towards Castiel, who was sitting in the back right corner of the room, like he did in every class. For some odd reason, Cas refused to sit in any other seat.

Dean dropped his backpack on the ground before pulling a chair up and joining Cas at the table. “Hey Castiel, looks like we are partners,” Dean said nonchalantly.

Cas, who was drawing something in his notebook, didn’t look up but nodded his head. “Hello Dean. It seems we are. I’m sorry for that. I know that I wasn’t your first choice.”

“How could you know that?” Dean asked.

Cas glanced up before looking back down at his notebook. “I am the weird kid that nobody wants to work with. I’m sure you would have preferred Benny or Lisa. You probably would have taken Ketch over me.”

Dean grimaced. “Ugh, no! You’re way better than that snotty brit who thinks he knows everything. Honestly, Cas, I don’t mind being partnered with you.”

As he continued to watch Cas, he noticed the other boy suddenly set his pencil down and quietly clap his hands together three times before picking his pencil back up and start drawing again. Dean thought it odd but didn’t say anything; everybody had their eccentricities. He grabbed his pen and notebook from his bag and sat them on the table. “Alright Cas, any ideas on what to do our project on?” He waited for the other student to answer, but Cas just continued to draw in his book. Like before, Cas randomly put his pencil down and then clapped his hands three times. “Uh, Cas, you ok?”

After a few seconds, Cas finally responded. “I am fine. Do you have an idea about a project to do?”

Dean huffed. “That’s what I just asked you. Look, why don’t we look through the list of topics Ms. Harvelle gave us and mark any we would want to do. Then we can compare our choices and see if we have any in common.”

Cas clapped his hands again as he responded. “That sounds like a good idea.” He grabbed his list and started reading through it, never once looking at Dean.

“No wonder people don’t want to work with him,” Dean thought as he started going through the list. He marked off five things: Mongol Empire, Japanese Samurai, Roman Empire, Aztec Empire, and Greek Mythology. “Alright, I’ve got my list, what about you?”

Cas finally looked at Dean as he nodded his head. “My list is complete.” He clapped his hands again before sliding the list to Dean.

Dean looked at Cas’ list and was surprised at how many options on the list he checked off. Out of twenty-five topics, Cas checked off twenty-one. The four that he didn’t check were all the ones Dean had checked on his own list. There was only one choice they had in common: Greek Mythology. “Well, it seems we only have one item in common and that’s Greek mythology. Do you want to do that one since we both checked it off?”

“I think that would be best. What is your favorite topic relating to Greek mythology?” Cas asked as he continued to draw.

Dean could feel anger rising as his classmate kept ignoring him. He was trying to be a good partner and work with Cas and yet the other boy would barely look at him. Dean didn’t expect them to become best friends, but they could at least be civil and work together to get this project done. “Dude, would you look at me when you’re talking to me? I don’t even know if you’re paying me any attention.” Cas clapped again and went right back to his drawing. “And would you quit with the clapping, it’s really annoying!”

It was as if Cas didn’t even hear Dean as he kept on drawing. They sat in silence for a few minutes and when Cas clapped his hands again, Dean barely kept his anger under control. “Did you not hear me? I asked you to stop with the clapping!”

Cas actually looked at him and Dean felt bad when he saw Cas’ bright blue eyes sparkling with unshed tears. “I’m sorry I’m so aggravating to you Dean. If I could stop clapping, I would. If keeping eye contact with people didn’t cause me such anxiety, I would do it more often. Maybe we should just ask Ms. Harvelle if we can do our projects individually. Most of the teachers will make an exception because of my… uh, condition. They don’t want to deal with me either.” Cas dropped his gaze and went back to drawing, clapping his hands a few seconds later.

Dean was shocked at what Cas had just said. What condition did Cas have that would cause him to avoid eye contact and repetitively clap his hands? Even though he was weird and annoying, to think that even Cas’ teachers had been mean to him was heartbreaking. Dean suddenly felt really bad about his outburst. He looked over at Ms. Harvelle and decided he needed to talk to her.

Dean stood up and waited to see if Cas would look up. He noticed the other boy’s shoulders slumped and Cas sped up his drawing but otherwise didn’t move. Dean sighed as he walked over to the teacher. “Uh, Ms. Harvelle, can I speak to you privately for a moment?”

Ms. Harvelle looked up from her computer and smiled as she said, “Of course, Dean. What do you need?”

Dean chewed on his lip and cast a glance in Cas’ direction. The boy was still drawing, not paying anyone else in the room any attention. He looked back at his teacher. “It’s about Cas.”

“If you’re going to ask to work on your own, the answer is no,” she said before Dean could continue.

“Um, that’s not what I was going to ask. I mean, I was going to until Cas said something that was really sad,” Dean replied.

“Oh. What did he say?” She asked with concern.

“He said that he had a condition and most of the teachers didn’t want to deal with him because of it. I know Cas isn’t super popular, but I thought that teachers liked all of their students,” Dean said as he rubbed the back of his neck.

Ms. Harvelle snorted. “Trust me Dean, teachers don’t like all of their students. You better not tell anybody I said that, or I’ll never make you one of my special burgers again.”

Dean grinned. “Yes, Aunt Ellen, my lips are sealed. Do you know what condition Cas has?”

She was silent and Dean feared she wouldn’t tell him. After a minute, “I shouldn’t tell you, but I think it will help you understand Castiel a bit better. Castiel is autistic. That’s why he doesn’t retain eye contact very often, why he typically draws, and why he claps every so often. He will also not always answer you when you call him and sometimes has a hard time understanding other’s emotions.”

“Oh man, I really screwed up. I got so mad at him, but I didn’t know. I need to go apologize,” Dean said, his voice full of guilt.

Ellen stood from her seat and put a gentle hand on her adoptive nephew’s shoulder. “Dean don’t beat yourself up. You aren’t the first and sadly you won’t be the last. As you heard Cas say, a lot of his teachers have a hard time accepting him. I just hope from now on, you won’t be so quick to judge others.”

Dean dropped his gaze. “I promise not to. I feel really bad and just hope Cas will still want to work with me.”

Ellen flashed a smile at the teen. “Apologize and make sure he knows that you’re sorry. Honestly, I put you with Cas for a reason. I figured if there was anyone in class who would be willing to understand him and work with him, it would be you. One more tip, even if Cas looks like he’s ignoring you, he’s probably not.”

Dean felt a little better after hearing Ellen’s words. “Thanks, and I promise Cas and I will have an amazing project to turn in.”

Dean walked back to his seat and this time when Cas clapped, he didn’t find it as annoying as before. “Hey Cas, I just wanted to say I’m sorry for the way I acted before. I shouldn’t have gotten mad about things you can’t, uh, control. I promise to be more patient from now on.”

Cas didn’t look at him, but Dean was able to make out the smile that spread across his face. “Thank you, Dean. That means a lot. Does this mean that you want to be my partner?”

“Yeah Cas it does,” Dean replied with a grin. “So, my favorite topic in Greek mythology is the gods and goddesses. What about you?”

Cas nodded. “That’s actually my favorite topic as well. So, what kind of project do you want to do?”

“Alright guys, we’ve got about five minutes before class ends,” Ms. Harvelle warned.

“Hey, how about you come home with me today after school and we can brainstorm some ideas?” Dean offered as he packed his bag up.

“That would be acceptable. I will meet you after school by the gym,” Cas replied as he packed his own backpack up except for his notebook and pencil. While they waited for the bell to ring, he continued to draw in his book.

Dean looked over to see what he was drawing and gasped. “Dude, that’s amazing! How the heck can you draw that with just a pencil? Man, my stick figures are pathetic and here you are drawing a rendition of ‘A Starry Night.’”

Cas glanced at him with a smile before immediately dropping his eyes. “Thank you, Dean. I love drawing and this is my favorite painting, so I decided to try and draw it myself. It’s not as good as Van Gogh’s, but I’m proud of it.”

Dean’s eyes lit up. “That’s it! What if we made a book on the gods and goddesses? You can do the artwork and I could come up with a story? My drawing sucks, but my writing is pretty great.”

Cas nodded, clapping his hands excitedly. “I love that idea! We need to get it approved; I hope Ms. Harvelle will approve it.”

Dean stood from his seat and hurried over to his aunt. He told her their idea and she was very excited about their project. He walked back to Cas; a large smile plastered on his face. “She gave us a very enthusiastic yes! So, we can start working on it today after school, if you still want to come over that is.”

“I would still like to come over. The sooner we get started, the better,” Cas replied right as the bell rang.

The two boys walked out of class together, Cas drawing as he walked. Dean kept an eye out to make sure Castiel didn’t run into anything, but he didn’t need it. The other student avoided every obstacle with ease. They said their goodbyes as they parted ways, Dean going to science and Cas walking towards the art building.

By the end of their project, which they got an “A+” on, Cas had become one of Dean’s best friends. Five years later, Cas was a successful artist and Dean was working on his third book to publish. They were still best friends, but now they were also husbands who loved each other unconditionally.

Tagging: @lonewolf34500 @notwithd @starrynightdeancas @flowersforcas @cockleslovesdestiel

#writersmonth2020 #My writing #destiel #high school #autistic castiel #Dean learns acceptance

61 notes · View notes

embalmerandphotographer · 4 years

Note

Do you have any hcs on Fiona Gilman and her interactions with the other survivors?

Ghost here! Oh I absolutely do. Fiona is the survivor I play most often after Aesop and I love her! Not just her skill, I also find her backstory very intriguing and have spent a lot of time talking to Greed about it, as is our way.

Okay so... First a warning or two:

1. This contains some spoilers for her deduction lines and birthday letter, so skip this one if you don't want to see that.

2. I'll freely admit that I love to push everything in a horror direction and this does of course also apply to the mega-evolved kiter herself.

Getting that out of the way...

I think it's clear that Fiona knew about and implied to have been drawn to Lakeside Village, where there was a cult religion worshiping a lake deity that was probably Hasur. We know the villagers sacrificed "livestock" to the their god by throwing them into the lake in exchange for their prayers being answered. We know Fiona was drawn to seek out occult mysteries, and that she has a philosophy of following where her gods lead her, taking the actions she believes they call on her to take. We also know the village is now abandoned, and letters later sent to villagers (see the Dancer's recent birthday letter) weren't answered. We also know that Fiona gained some pretty impressive magical powers at some point, ones she didn't have growing up.

So, Fiona went to the village, either believing herself drawn there or because of what she'd heard about the lake cult, or both. I think she, a very attractive and definitely driven if not also somewhat cunning young woman, was able to join the cult and become close to or even join its secretive inner circle, the one in charge of the actual summoning and sacrifices.

And Ms. Fiona Gilman had a very big wish she wanted granted, a deep prayer she had no doubt been holding close most of her life.

I think Fiona wanted to be special. Powerful. Part of the magical world. And she wanted to be follow the call of her gods, to be able to pass through the solid reality of this world into the spiritual one she always wanted but never had access to as a child.

And I think she that she got her wish. And that she sacrificed the entire population of Lakeside Village to the lake and to Hasur to get it. Consider that the villagers were asking for small things, and paying in blood sacrifice and the slaughter of livestock for even that. And who and what Fiona became is very much not the anxious, unhappy, and apparently seeming unexceptional person she was implied to have been before breaking away from her mother.

If you consider the survivor's abilities separate from how they're balanced by the game mechanics, Fiona is one of the most powerful of the survivors, if not the most powerful. Along with Patricia and Eli, she had actual magical abilities before coming to the manor*. And because of my take on her, I think that like Aesop, she'd killed enough people that she could have been (and might still one day be) a hunter instead of a survivor... but that’s a post for another day.

So! That's my HC for her backstory. You also asked about her interactions with the others.

First off, while I obviously think she's a sort of amoral-evil person on a grand scale, I think Fiona is probably perfectly nice and even quite charismatic on an individual basis. Kind of weird still, because she's the priestess of a cult, but charming and easy to get along with in spite of this. And while I do think Fiona is capable of being manipulative to get what she wants, I also think she doesn't think of her actions as evil or intentionally do harm. Even her drowning a whole village of people in a lake could have been framed, for her, as following her god's commands. Maybe she thought that after so many sacrifices, Hastur wouldn't be bound to the lake anymore, and she might even have been right about that.

(Btw this, in my mind, is one of the most dangerous types of person when they're amoral. Someone so very likable is also so much harder to criticize, to question, or even to think ill of.)

So, I think the survivors get along with her fine for the most part. I don't think any of them know about what she did (with maybe one exception), and that they take her at face value as another member of their strange, unwilling team.

Now... She's casually friendly with pretty much all the survivors, with a few exceptions, but that she might not have any very close connections at the manor. I think she has a mean-girls style friendship with Vera, and that’s her closest friend. Also she and Patricia have long, technical conversations about magic from time to time, but Patricia is deeply uninterested in getting cursed more/again and steers clear of whatever it is the Priestess is up to spiritually. Any of the survivors who are attracted to pretty ladies and susceptible to getting crushes probably do have mild to moderate crushes on her (Kevin, Vera, Freddy, Martha, Emily, William, Emma, and certainly others although I haven't thought through it too much). Also, for some reason I headcanon that Luca specifically Just Thinks She's Neat, because she has a fascinating ability that challenges his view of a scientific reality, and because they're both feral and he can vibe with that.

Aesop is completely, almost hilariously immune to her charisma and views her neutrally- a competent coworker with a hang up on one of the hunters that's really not his place to comment on.

On the other hand, I think Emily and Martha don't think much of her intelligence due to her spirituality/gods, and Emma just quietly doesn't get closely involved with Fiona outside of matches because she while she may be unhinged she has good instincts. Poor Andrew is absolutely terrified of her like the good Catholic boy he is. And she does unnerve a few of the other survivors but not in a way that they can quite put their finger on, so they dismiss it.

And then there's Eli. I've understood Eli's backstory to imply that he's from the Roman Empire, so way further back in the timeline than most of the others, who were take from eras closer to the World Wars. And Eli is linked to Fiona, but we don't know how. They have similar eye themes (Fiona's keys/portals have eyes on them and Eli's blindfold/owl are related to sight), but they can't have know each other when they were alive, and we don't hear anything about the lake cult being involved in Eli’s life or his future seeing. Fiona is implied to have served and still be following Hastur, but the same can't be said for Eli as far as I know.

I don't think Eli dislikes Fiona. They might even be friends in a way, or sort of colleagues. Certainly there aren't many other people they can talk to about magic, and they do share some kind of connection from outside the manor. But I think Eli has very mixed feeling about her, partly because he knows that mystical powers come with costs.

And I have a specific, wildly extrapolated headcanon about them. I don't think Eli was part of a cult dedicated to Hastur that existed long before Fiona was ever born. I think his own powers were given to him, in part, to stop things like what Fiona did in Lakeside Village from ever happening. To contain gods of chaos and protect the balance of the world. He might even have had visions of what happened, either with the Lakeside cult or with the manor games or both, and if so he just wasn't able to stop it, being too far away in time until he was pulled into the timeless pocket dimension the manor apparently exists in. (How interesting then for him to become trapped with living proof that what he saw and would have tired to prevent had already come to pass?)

Anyway! Those are my headcanons for Fiona, or what I have time to write down tonight.

Closing thoughts:

-I did also find another little bit of interesting trivia: part of Eli's Chinese name originally translated to Gilman. We also know reincarnation is a theme for him. Who knows what the manor game is about, after all?

-I also think it's EXTREMELY funny that Fiona claims to have not come to the manor after being called by a letter, but instead to have followed "a spirit" or one of her gods to the manor. Because if it's at all true, Ms. Gilman *broke into the manor*, either at the behest of her god (Hastur) or because she was following him. She broke in. Can she get out out? Does she just not want to? I have questions!!! Ms. Gilman what is your deal!!)

*(Servais, honey, I appreciate you, but we don't know if you had real magic or just excellent illusionism skills before the manor; I also think it's safe to say that Mike's juggling wasn't magical until the manor got ahold of him either, and so on with Vera, Aesop, etc.)

#identity v #fiona gilman #identity v headcanon #long post #coffin #sorry this took a few days to answer #hope you enjoy my ramblings about my murderous crystal hippie headcanons for fiona #Anonymous

15 notes · View notes

ltworld · 4 years

Text

Revelation, Coronavirus, and the Mark of the Beast: How Should Christians Read the Bible’s Most Fascinating Book? Part 1

Kevin DeYoung

Whenever there is a cataclysmic global crisis—be it war, rumors of war, or a novel coronavirus—we see a sharp uptick of interest in the book of Revelation. While paying attention to the Bible is always a good thing, Revelation is too often used (by Christians and non-Christians) in a way that does less to edify the body of Christ and more to stoke the fires of wild speculation and unfounded conspiracy theories.

It may be helpful, then, to understand what kind of book Revelation is and how to make sense of imagery like the mark of the beast. We’ll get to the mark of the beast in the third and final installment of this short series. But before we get there I want to take a couple posts to look at what Revelation is all about and how we should interpret this not-as-strange-as-it-seems book.

Big Picture

Probably no book of the Bible has been harder for Christians to understand and, as a result, produced more bizarre theology than the book of Revelation. Although it is called “revelation,” it has been anything but a revelation for many Christians. It is a closed book for many of us, not correcting, not teaching, not rebuking, not training in righteousness like all Scripture should.

I remember teaching through part of Revelation for a Sunday school class several years ago and telling my mom about it over the phone. She said something like, “Kevin, you’re not going act like you have everything figured out are you? John Calvin didn’t even write a commentary on Revelation. You don’t know more than John Calvin, do you?” It is true that Calvin did not write a commentary on Revelation (one of the few books he didn’t write on), and it’s true that I don’t have everything figured out. But most of Revelation can be understood and applied if we will take the time to study it.

In fact, the entire book of Revelation can be summed up in one word: nike. Nike is the Greek word for victory. It occurs one time in the New Testament—1 John 5:4 states, “This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith.” Another form of the word (nikos) appears four other times, three times in 1 Corinthians 15 (e.g., “Death has been swallowed up in victory;” “He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ”). The verb form, nikao (meaning to conquer, to overcome, to triumph), occurs more frequently—28 times. Seventeen of those occurrences, more than in the rest of the New Testament combined, are in Revelation.

Revelation is the story of the Devil trying to conquer the church, but the church overcomes the Devil and the world because she belongs to the Lord who has won for us the victory (Rev. 5:5; 17:14). The book of Revelation gives instruction for the believer on how to conquer instead of being conquered, how to triumph instead of being trampled, and how to be an overcomer instead of a succumber. That’s why each of the seven letters to the seven churches concludes with “to the one who conquers . . .” If we cave and give in to persecution and give into worldliness and give into the Devil’s temptations, we will lose. But if we overcome through trial and suffering and seeming irrelevance, we will win (Rev. 21:6-7). That’s where history is heading, and that’s the big idea of Revelation.

(Possible) Map for the (Seeming) Madness

There is no one inspired way to understand the structure of Revelation. When studying this book in-depth several years ago, I found 11 different outlines, which suggests there probably isn’t one obvious structure we’re supposed to see.

One simple approach is to see Revelation as divided into two main sections. Chapters 1-11 introduce the story of God’s triumph, and chapters 12-22 explain the story in greater detail, this time unveiling in more depth the role of evil through the beast, the false prophet, and the whore of Babylon.

Another way of approaching the book is to divide it into four main sections, each marked off by the phrase “what must soon take place” or “what must take place after this.”

Rev. 1:1 The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants the things that must soon take place.

Rev. 1:19 Write therefore the things that you have seen, those that are and those that are to take place after this.

Rev. 4:1 “Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after this.”

Rev. 22:6 “And the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, has sent his angel to show his servants what must soon take place.”

The language in these four passages comes from Daniel 2 and indicates that Old Testament prophecy is already and not yet completed in Revelation.

There’s another way to outline the book into four main sections. This approach marks out the times John says he was caught up in the Spirit.

Rev. 1:10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet.

Rev. 4:2 At once I was in the Spirit, and behold, a throne stood in heaven, with one seated on the throne.

Rev. 17:3 And he carried me away in the Spirit into a wilderness.

Rev. 21:10 And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great, high mountain, and showed me the holy city Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God.

By this reckoning, Revelation consists of four main visions that John saw while he was in the Spirit on four different occasions.

Yet one more way of approaching the book—and the approaches are not mutually exclusive—is to look for sets of sevens. Everyone recognizes that seven is a crucial number in Revelation, and that there are at least four sets of sevens: seven letters, seven seals, seven trumpets, and seven bowls. This much everyone agrees on. But from here things get less clear. Since there are plainly at least four sets of sevens, many scholars have wondered if we are meant to see seven sets of sevens. I am convinced there are seven sets of sevens, but I certainly wouldn’t be dogmatic about it. My outline, which is similar to outlines I’ve seen from others, looks like this:

Prologue: 1:1-8 I. Seven letters: 1:9-3:22 II. Seven seals: 4:1-8:5 III. Seven trumpets: 8:6-11:19 IV. Seven visions: 12:1-15:4 V. Seven bowls: 15:5-16:21 VI. Seven judgments: 17:1-19:10 VII. Seven last things: 19:11-21:8 VIII. The beautiful bride: 21:9-22:21

You’ll notice there is an eighth section that is not a set of seven. An eighth section makes sense because eight is often the number of new creation in the Bible (Jesus rose on the eighth day/first day of a new week, eight people started the new humanity after the flood, sons were to be circumcised on the eighth day), and this eighth section is about the new heavens and new earth. But there is nothing inspired about the outline above. It’s just one way of making the book more manageable and putting together some possible patterns with some obvious ones.

Our Interpretive Lens

The last thing I want to do in this post is look at the various ways Christians have understood Revelation. There are four main schools of thought.

The first school of interpretation is called preterism. The preterist approach teaches that a large portion of the book of Revelation was fulfilled in the first century, specifically in the destruction of the temple in AD 70. Further, most of the prophecies in Revelation were fulfilled by the fall of the Roman Empire in the fifth century.

The strength of the preterist school is that it puts Revelation in its original context. Revelation was written to first-century Christians with first-century metaphors and imagery and referents. If we jump to the 21st century and ask, “What does this mean for me?,” we will almost surely get the wrong answer. We have to first ask, “What did this mean to them, to John’s original audience?”

Preterism is not without weaknesses. First, some preterists try to find a single, specific fulfillment to the prophecies of Revelation when it seems more likely that John’s visions often portray generalized spiritual battles and struggles that occur throughout the ages. Second, full-blown preterists argue that all of the end-time events, like the second coming and the last judgment, actually were fulfilled by AD 70. This does not seem in keeping with the cataclysmic language used at the end of each sequence.

The second school of interpretation is called historicism. The historicist reads Revelation as a straightforward, sequential roadmap of history. Revelation is seen as predicting any number of key historical figures and events from Napoleon to Hitler to the European Union to the United Nations.

The strength of historicism is that it makes Revelation relevant for all Christians. It focuses our attention not on the fall of the temple or on the Roman Empire but on the way of the church in the world.

But besides this strong point, historicism is the worst way to try to understand Revelation. It is full of weaknesses. Let me quickly mention just four.

First, historicism is often anachronistic and takes Revelation out of its original context. I am thinking of those who argued that the country out of the north (from Daniel, not Revelation) must be Russia, or that the locust swarm from Revelation 9 is foretelling a helicopter battalion. These sorts of interpretations completely ignore the imagery of ancient prophecy and the context of the first century.

Second, historicism, with its end-of-the-world predictions and identifications of the beast, has often been demonstrably wrong. During the cold war, people saw Russia in Revelation. A decade ago they saw Iraq. Now they see the coronavirus. In a few years, they will be on to something else. Historicists tend to see Revelation being fulfilled in whatever crisis is pertinent for the day. And then on another day, another group of historicists see that view was wrong and find something completely different.

Third, historicism limits the prophecies of Revelation to one exclusive location or personality instead of allowing that the imagery of Revelation may be well suited to an inclusive number of different figures and times. That is, I think historicists are right to see Revelation unfolding in history, but they are wrong to think that Revelation is uniquely unfolding in one historical moment.

Fourth, historicism is irreducibly subjective. There is simply no objective standard of interpretation. Who’s to say that Hitler was more the beast than Stalin? Or that 666 is a reference to Bill Clinton (as one website I found argues)? Or, as another article maintains, that Ronald Wilson Reagan (six letters in each of his names!) was the beast? It’s all hopelessly subjective. The text ends up saying anything we want it to.

The third school of interpretation is futurism. The futurist reads Revelation (chs. 4-22) as a prophecy solely concerned with the distant future. The events depicted refer to the time involving, or immediately preceding, the end of history. Dispensationalists are futurists (though not all futurists are dispensationalists).

The strength of futurism is that it emphasizes how Revelation speaks to the future, not just about the past. Futurism is right to see that some things in Revelation deal with the final consummation of human history. Futurists are also right to see that the future is moving somewhere, toward the triumph of the Lamb.

But futurism also has weaknesses.

First, if Revelation 4-22 is entirely and only about the distant future, then most of Revelation was barely relevant to its original readers. Sure, it would have helped them see the end of the world, but it really spoke little into their immediate context (when John says Revelation revealed “what must soon take place”).

Second, futurism often assumes a strict sequential chronology. And yet, we cannot assume that what is shown to us in chapter 12 comes in time after what we see in chapter 6. To the contrary, one of the keys to interpreting Revelation is to understand that its visions are recapitulated. So, Revelation gives us a sweep through history in the seven seals, and then does the sweep again in the seven bowls. Revelation comprises overlapping prophecies that go back and forth between the present and the future and are not strictly chronological.

Don’t think of the visions of Revelation as frames from a movie reel running through the light one after the other. Think of the visions as portraits in a gallery. You look at one portrait and get a glimpse of reality, and then you look at the next portrait, and then you walk over to the next room and look at the portraits over there. They are pictures telling the same story and pointing to the same reality, but they aren’t sequential clips from a movie.

The fourth school of interpretation is idealism. The idealist reads Revelation as a symbolic conflict between the forces of good and evil. Revelation, idealists argue, does not point to particular historical figures but depicts the timeless struggle between God and Satan. It interprets Revelation as a series of repeated symbolic pictures, focusing on the church’s triumphant struggle from the first century until the last judgment and the eternal state.

The strength of idealism is that is understands the symbolic nature of Revelation. It realizes that Revelation’s imagery is rooted first in Old Testament language and second in the known world of the first century. The other strength is that it sees behind the first-century context deeper spiritual realities that would outlive and transcend ancient Rome and remain relevant for believers throughout the ages.

The weakness of idealism is that it can at times under-emphasize the fact that all of history is moving somewhere. That is, idealism sometimes sounds vague, as if there were no end point in history as we know it, as if Revelation was just about the struggle between good and evil and not also about the ultimate triumph of Jesus Christ.

Interpret the Book

So what approach do I think helps us best understand Revelation? I think each approach offers something needed. This doesn’t mean that I think every approach is good or that one is not better than another (I’m basically an idealist with a partial preterist bent). But each school of interpretation does offer something important.

With the preterist, we must read Revelation in its immediate context.

With the idealist, we must look at Revelation as a symbolic portrayal of God’s work, most of which can be applied to any historical time.

With the futurist, we must read Revelation with end of history in mind, recognizing that the book depicts, in parts, the second coming, the final judgment, and the eternal state.

And with the historicist, we must understand that the prophecies of Revelation, though they are not limited to one particular occurrence, are fulfilled in time and space.

The best way to defend one’s interpretive grid is to actually interpret the book. But since this is a three-part blog series and not a 50-part sermon series, we will have to settle for just one more post on the subject. In the first three verses, John makes clear that this book is an apocalypse, a prophecy, and a letter. Once we know what each of the terms entail, we will be better equipped to understand the book as a whole and specific imagery like the mark of the beast.

Note: This post was first published through The Gospel Coalition website.

#deyoung #revelation

1 note · View note

douxreviews · 5 years

Text

Rome - Series Review

“You look like laundry.”

Costume dramas and toga parties aren’t for everyone. But even if Gladiator left you cold, Caligula left you cringing, and I, Claudius left you feeling overly-British, HBO’s now-defunct series Rome is still worth checking out during the summer television wasteland.

Rome is about two legionaries, Titus Pullo and Lucius Vorenus. It’s about pre-middle-class urban life. It’s about colonialism. It’s about pre-Christian morality. It’s about sex, and violence, and loyalty, and fatherhood, and childhood. Oh, yeah: it’s about Julius and Augustus Caesar and the bloody chaos of the rise of the Roman Empire.

I know this is a genre site. I know that HBO’s Rome ended years ago. But what else are you going to do during the Summer TV Wasteland? (Especially if you don’t have cable?)

Season One covers Caesar’s return from Gaul (which is divided into three parts, as you will recall from Latin 101) after eight years subduing the hairy natives. Victorious, angry, and with an astonishing amount of popular support for someone who’s been away for so long, Caesar crosses the Rubicon with his vast army—a real no-no according to Republican laws, which didn’t allow generals to command troops within the Roman environs. Caesar, who is stolid, smart, and pleasantly sharp-witted, gets into a power-play with the hapless and pudgy Pompey, wins, and becomes a tyrant who is assassinated by Brutus, Cassius, and 42 other Roman senators. And if you feel spoiled, well… you should have paid better attention in Roman Civ.

Season Two is far more rushed: the producers found out that they were being cancelled mid-filming, and decided to compress what had been a five-year plan into about five episodes. So Season Two takes us from Caesar’s death to the rise of Augustus to Mark Antony’s defeat (and steamy relationship with Cleopatra) in Egypt. Against the backdrop, Lucius and Titus contend with the difficult adjustment to civilian life, and even, for a while, become something like Mafiosi in the city of Rome itself.

Lucius and Titus are, for me, the heart of the series. Lucius (Kevin McKidd, who is now on Grey’s Anatomy -- he's the grumpy one in the photo) is a “Catonian” -- he believes in the sacred Roman Republic. But he also believes in loyalty and keeping his promises. Over the course of the two seasons, this means that he, more often than not, winds up working against his own political philosophy out of loyalty to Caesar (first) and Mark Antony (later). Lucius’s home life is no simpler: after eight years away, he and his wife have some complex issues to work out. How they work them out I’ll leave for you to discover.

Titus (Ray Stevenson), who is in the brig for general disorderliness when we first meet him, is Lucius’s polar opposite. He doesn’t have a political philosophy. He doesn’t have a philosophy, at all. But he’s a spectacular fighter who is, it turns out, capable of his own kind of loyalty -- to Lucius, with whom he becomes fast friends, and to Augustus Caesar, whom he taught to fight (as a youngster) and for whom he does occasionally gruesome favors (when Caesar is actually Caesar and not just Octavius). Watching Titus grow, but stay essentially true to his essentially good nature, over the course of the series is definitely one of its high points. I liked him so much I even rented the most recent Punisher movie, in which Ray Stevenson plays the eponymous character. Sadly, I am not a Punisher fan.

History buffs will love this show -- at least, I think that’s a huge part of my affection for it. My own deep-seated hatred of Cicero for all of those damned dependent clauses and odd ablative uses made me laugh out loud when I saw him sniveling, groveling, and grasping at straws in the Caesar-Pompey death-match. But, schadenfraude aside, his death scene made me cry. Seeing Old Man Cato, scrawny and protesting in the Roman senate in a skimpy black toga, was equally amusing (Cato has a great part to play in Dante’s Purgatory, which has always endeared me to him).

Both Caesars are rather unreadable, especially Ocatvius/Octavian/Augustus, who is played by a child actor for the first half of the series, and an adult actor for the second half. He’s brilliant, cold, proto-Machiavellian, and completely unable to understand illogical, emotional behavior -- he demands loyalty but is incapable of it himself. The complexity of his character, over about 22 episodes, pretty much reveals why I think this show is just awesome. Mark Antony isn’t quite as well drawn, but I get the impression that he just wasn’t that complex of a guy. Either way, James Purfoy does a great job.

I feel like I should say something about the women -- Atia, Julius’s niece, prominent among them. And Cleopatra, of course. Their roles are complex but they’re usually stuck in the domestic sphere, attempting to control the men and circumstances around them through sex, parties, and social snubs. It’s fun to watch, but in retrospect it’s easier to forget.

Rome received a lot of press in its heyday: it wasn’t nearly as popular as Deadwood, Six Feet Under or The Sopranos, but it was far more expensive than all of those shows. The sets for the Forum and the Avantine were the largest sets ever constructed for a TV show, on an Italian backlot. The money was well-spent: until I did some research, I assumed that the producers had simply taken over a town in, say, Croatia, and Romanized it within an inch of its life. It just looks real. If they ever do make a movie, which is a rumor floating around, it should look great on a big screen.

For all the cost and bluster, Rome got some flack for not being “sweeping” or “epic” enough. But it’s not supposed to be Gladiator for the small screen. Rather, it’s about the personalities involved in a battle that seems epic in retrospect, but at the time was a vivid, lived experience for a select group of powerful men and women. Also, the life of the “common man” (whoever he is) was typically dark, cramped, and dirty. Rome wasn’t a planned city, and alleys were far more common that wide boulevards and open spaces.

Rome wasn’t built in a day, and it wasn’t built by just one man engaging in some mythological Pax Romana or something like that. It was people with money and power wanting more money and more power, but it was also people with strong philosophies (Lucius, Cicero, and Cato among them) just trying to do what is right according to old Roman virtues. It’s also, of course, about the death of the virtuous against the greediness of others. But when isn’t that the story of civilization?

Four out of four togas.

Josie Kafka is a full-time cat servant and part-time rogue demon hunter. (What's a rogue demon?)

#Rome #Titus Pullo #Lucius Vorenus.#Julius Caesar #Mark Antony #Atia of the Julii #Rome Reviews #Doux Reviews #TV Reviews #something from the archive

5 notes · View notes

thewahookid · 3 years

Link

We are challenged to have great faith!!! August 30, 2021

Dear Family of Mary!

Here is the August 25, 2021 Message from Our Lady, Queen of Peace:

“Dear children! With joy I am calling all of you, little children, who have responded to my call: be joy and peace. Witness with your lives Heaven, which I am bringing to you. It is time, little children, that you be a reflection of my love for all those who do not love and whose hearts hatred has conquered. Do not forget: I am with you and intercede for all of you before my Son Jesus, that He may give you His peace. Thank you for having responded to my call.” (August 25, 2021)

On Saturday, the Feast of St. Augustine (August 28), Fr. Kevin McKeever gave a most spectacular homily in St. Augustine’s honor. I have transcribed it for us. Today I present the first half and tomorrow the second. We will receive a great deal of peace from Fr. Kevin’s words:

Homily for August 28, 2021, English Mass, Medjugorje – Fr. Kevin McKeever

The servants in today’s Gospel all received a share in their Master’s riches in proportion to their ability. The weak are not meant to be envious of the strong because the Lord in His mercy has given them a lesser burden to carry our of consideration for the ability. But the strong are not meant to become proud or look down on the weak because by accepting the greater duties that are allotted to them, they realize that they will have to face a more demanding judgement.

Today we see that in the life of St. Augustine. God lavished great spiritual gifts of wisdom, eloquence and knowledge upon him, and gave him the dignity of being a bishop in his Church. Yet for Augustine that was no reason for boasting. On the contrary, he said that the responsibilities placed upon him terrified him. But the grace of still being a Christian, loved by God, comforted him. As he famously said, “For you I am a bishop. With you, I am a Christian.”

The immense grace that God lavished on St. Augustine from the moment of his conversion until the moment of his holy death, combined with his natural genius to produce an amazing abundance of spiritual fruit.

The Church never ceases to draw a rich harvest from Augustine’s labors. Every time his books or sermons are read, studied and used in prayer. Anyone who has encountered St. Augustine through his writings, cannot help but have their heart and soul touched by the spirit of this saintly bishop and doctor of the Church. Just as God touched the heart of Augustine and set it aflame with love, so too does He continue to touch the hearts of all of us through St. Augustine’s work.

The marvelous thing about Augustine’s voluminous writings is that he has something to say for every mood and every occasion. For example when we read his famous Confessions, we can reflect with Augustine about how the invisible hand of God’s providence guides every moment of our life. Even in the bad moments, we see that God is there patiently preparing us for something greater.

With Augustine we can weep in penitence for our sins. And we can rejoice in the mercy of God. With him we can thank God for the beauty of His creation. And praise Him for all His mighty deeds. However Augustine can also give us a good shake to get us out of our complacency or to stop us from feeling sorry for ourselves.

Augustine lived in very troubled times. And he often had to deal with parishioners who were always moaning and complaining about how bad things are. So he once said in a sermon, “Our Holy Scriptures do not promise us peace, security and repose, but tribulations and distress. So we must not complain. ‘As some of them complained,’ as the Apostle says, ‘and perished from the serpents.’ What fresh sort of sufferings to we endure that our fathers did not undergo? Yet you find men complaining about the times live in, saying that the times of our parents were good. What if they could be taken back to the times of their parents and should then complain. The past times that you think were good, are good because they are not yours here and now. Have we forgotten the flood, have we forgotten those burdensome times of famine and wars? They were written about to prevent us from complaining about the present time against God.What times those were.So we have rather cause for congratulating ourselves, than grounds for complaining about our own times.”

And how relevant those words are for us. If we are lamenting our own times, whether it is because of COVID and restrictions, or because of war and terrorism, or even problems in the Church. Augustine could point us to his own times, never mind the disasters of other centuries, and tell us to be thankful for small mercies.

Imagine facing the plagues that rocked the Roman Empire without the benefit of modern medical science. Or imagine being Augustine watching the Vandals attack his home town in North Africa. One year after his death, Augustine’s city of Hippo Regius was destroyed, never again to recover.

We might think that the Catholic Church is in a bad way now, but Augustine could point to the scandals and schisms of his own day, which were so divisive that they often led to violence. He had to contend with the Manichaens, the Arians, the Donatists, the Pelagians. Those words might not mean much to you now, but all they meant to Augustine was headache, heartache and stress. No wonder he never had a moments rest as he tried to argue with them and correct them.

So today, St. Augustine also stands before us as a reminder that all the paths of history, just like our own personal journey through life, stand under the loving guidance of God’s providence. So instead of being fearful, complaining, we are challenged to have faith, and patient trust in God. Willingly carrying our crosses as a precious way of sharing in the saving Cross of Christ.

End of part 1! Part 2 tomorrow!

(Homily of Fr. Kevin McKeever, August 28, 2021 – English Mass Medjugorje)

https://marytv.tv/english-homily-in-medjugorje-2/?smid=iAzb9cs0lQW&slid=IRBKmbjFsDA

In Jesus, Mary and Joseph! Cathy Nolan Mary TV 2021

0 notes

firstumcschenectady · 4 years

Text

“Hope for New Life” based on Isaiah 11:1-10 and Luke 1:39-56

It is common to call the writer of the Gospel of Luke... Luke, which makes plenty of sense. It isn't likely to be historically accurate, but it is pretty simple to remember. Whatever the writer's real name was, the person who wrote the Gospel of Luke and its 2nd volume the book of Acts, is said to be the best writer in the New Testament. From my perspective I can tell that Luke does great work with foreshadowing, telling stories within stories to enrich both stories, symbolism, and themes. However, the really good stuff, I'm told is in his Greek vocabulary and syntax which are simply just outstanding. “Luke” was a VERY well educated person, and a master of the craft of writing. Given how small the percentage of literate people were at that time, being so well versed as a writer indicates not only brilliance and skill but also power and privilege. One simply would not become that great of a writer without a lot of access to unusual levels of resources.

Luke is probably my favorite Gospel writer, and I love Luke for his emphasis on people who are poor, marginalized, and vulnerable, and because they fit those categories, the women. Luke tells the story of my faith, presenting Jesus as an ally to those most in need of rescue, and as an organizer able to help people rescue themselves. This has a bit of cognitive dissonance to it. Based on WHAT he writes, Luke is a writer of the people. He is empowering, noticing those society disregards, and telling the stories that the powerful don't want told. Yet, based on HOW he writes, Luke is one of society's elites.

Which sounds to me like Luke being a living example of the power of Jesus – to convince people to work together to build the kindom no matter where they begin life, to be FOR ALL the people as they grow.

Isaiah was a prophet, and from what I can tell, a prophet is a speaker for the people. The Torah set up a society that treated people justly, and prevented an upper class from ruling over a lower class. Yet, people being people, power, money, and influence tended to coalesce at a top and become a burden to the many. God's prophets spoke out against it, and called people back to God's vision of a just, equal, and equitable lifestyle.

Which is a long-winded way of saying that we have two passages today that are “of the people” and yearning for justice. They do so in ways that can be a little bit uncomfortable. There are not simply passages that suggest “a rising tide lifts all boats” but rather ones that talk about REDISTRIBUTION of wealth1. These are passages that are good news for the poor, the lowly, and the meek ... but not for the rich, the proud, and the powerful. I find the “rising tide lifts all boats” sort of justice easier to swallow. This stuff is ... harder.

And yet, my activist friends assure me that we aren't going to get to justice only by being nice. So, let's examine these texts for wisdom. This shoot that come from Jesse in Isaiah, have you noticed that it comes AFTER the tree has been cut down. This is a sign of hope after destruction and hopelessness. The passage as a whole feels like a cousin of last week's passage. In this case, the new offspring of Jesse (which is to say the new Davidic king) is going to be so perfectly imbued with the Spirit of God that the new King will rule as perfectly as God's own self would.

The impact of life as ruled as God would have it ruled is shockingly different. When God's spirit is in leadership, and when the people are following in God's ways, there will be peace even among animals who are in each other's food chains ;) Safety becomes the center point of this – the lamb, the kid-goat, the calf, and the human child are all safe in the presence of those most apt to harm them. This is another way of talking about not needing to be afraid, because there is no motivation to do harm. In this case, it is clear that there are no people oppressing other people, no one is “eating up” the resources of the weaker people to make themselves stronger. Security, hope, and peace are the result of God's Spirit. That's the kindom.

Mary's song hits the same notes. Mary is continuing to process that she, who is lowly by the standards of the world, is now “blessed.” She attributes this change to God, and notices that this is how God works. She says it is God's nature to do great things, to show mercy, to be strong.... to bring justice. And she names how justice comes. It is by scattering the proud and bringing down the powerful – while lifting up the lowly. It is by feeding the hungry but NOT giving more to those who already have too much. Mary's song is, itself, strong and justice seeking. She identifies with the lowly, who God lifts up. And it is even more interesting to hear that knowing that the writer of the Gospel probably identifies with the rich, and wrote her song this way anyway.

While we know absolutely nothing about Jesus's mother with any certainty, we do know Jesus had a mother. The name Mary was associated with her a few generations after his death, which isn't a great reason to assume it is true, but sort of like “Luke” we can go with it. I suspect Mary got associated with the name of the mother of Jesus because Mary is the Greek version of the Hebrew name Miriam. Miriam, the sister of Moses, has the oldest words in the Bible attributed to her, and saved her brother so he could save the nation Israel. Associating Mary with Miriam is A-Ok with me.

Other conjectures we can make about Mary include: she was Jewish, she was from Galilee – most likely Nazareth, she was poor, and it is likely she was young. She may have been a very faithful Jew, as Judean settlers were intentionally reclaiming Galilee for Judaism around that time, and the ones who went were often the ones who were committed to the cause. She also might have been influenced by either the Roman Empire's violent destruction of the nearby city of Sepphoras in her childhood or by the radical Jewish teachers in the Galilee who taught that the God of liberation was going to liberate again. In any case, while the leaders of the Temple during her lifetime were appointed by Rome and the “official” religion had been compromised, it is possible (probable?) that Mary knew a faith that was untainted by the influence of power.

Which is to say, that while Luke wrote the words we hear today, and put them into Mary's mouth for our story – they MAY well reflect her faith itself. At the very least, Mary's song words as an incredible foreshadowing of the power of God that people saw in Jesus, and I believe Jesus's faith was likely formed by his mother's.

In Mark, Jesus is referred to as Mary's son which is unusual in that he was not referred to as his FATHER'S son. With the presence of a punishing military force nearby, before Jesus's birth, there are some particularly awful possibilities about his father. What we know is that at some point Mary was pregnant, expecting a child, and likely pretty scared. I say that because maternal mortality rates were high, infant mortality rates were high, and resources in Nazareth were scarce. It is very likely that Mary herself was hungry, including during her pregnancy and while she was breastfeeding Jesus. She had seen extreme violence from the Empire, and had reason to believe it could come back at any time. She MAY have been facing the possibility of being ostracized from her community. Thus, I think it is fair to assume she was scared.

Even stripping away most of that, scared seems right. For years, Kevin and I have struggled with some big questions: is it OK for us to choose to bring a child into this world knowing the dangers of Global Climate Change? Is it ok for us to choose to bring a child into this world when there are other children who need to be parented? How much capacity do we have to offer care and support for a child given our other commitments?

After long talks, prayer, and good counsel, we decided that our ideal family would include a child born to us and a child adopted by us. So we started trying to have a child and.... well, nothing happened. Eventually we made an appointment with an adoption lawyer, and decided to try private infant adoption. We filled out paperwork, got background checked, had a home study, and were ready to sign a court petition requesting that we be approved to be able to become adoptive parents when we learned that I was, in biblical phrasing, “with child.”

Now, I live in the 21st century, with pretty great access to resources. While our country is weaker than it should be, particularly in the care of women of color, compared with ancient Galilee we have low maternal mortality rates, low infant mortality rates, plenty of food, and low threat of violence. Yet as an expectant mother, I'm scared. While I find it excessive to overly identify with “Mother Mary,” preparing to parent has certainly helped me see why she's so popular. Also, why she has every right to be scared. We have been wondering how on earth will we prepare a child to be kind, compassionate, and moral in this crazy world? How will we teach them of God in ways that feel relevant while the world shifts under our feet?

Let me assure you that we did NOT sign that paperwork and adoption is officially on hold. Let me also admit to you that being the pregnant pastor of this church for the past two months hasn't been the easiest thing I've ever done. I haven't been puking (WIN) but I have been constantly nauseated, and instructed to eat every hour. I've been exhausted and my emotional resources have been down. At the same time, I have experienced significant collateral friendly fire as this church has worked together on the reality of our budget deficit.

Between the friendly fire and being less resilient than usual, I have spent time considering if pastoring this church - or even being a pastor at all – continues to be the right path for me. Some of this is simply about parenting: I'm nervous about being away from home 4 nights a week like I usually am now. Some of this is about ministry’s demands: what will it mean to have to establish the sort of boundaries my child will need, and what will I do when the needs of the church are in conflict, and what will happen when someone feels that their expectations aren’t being met? Some of it is about our child and this church. On one hand I can't imagine any church but this one being part of raising our child. I love the way children are cared for during worship. I love our Sunday School and its teachers. I love the way children are treated here, and I love the ways God is understood and taught here. However, on the other hand, my stress level has been sky high, and recently I've seen a lot of behavior I wouldn't want a child to learn about much less associate with this church. So I've been wondering, is this a safe and secure place for a child – our child – to learn about God? Will this place fulfill Isaiah's vision of a child being able to put their hand in a snake's den safely?

In slow, careful deliberation, with conversation, and consultation, and prayer, and a LOT of obsessing and worrying, I've decided not to give up on ministry just yet. Then, even more slowly, I realized that – for now – this church is worth the pain. I simply love you all. Furthermore, I don't believe that this church IS its worst behaviors. Dear ones, I believe that this faith community is an expression of the kindom of God. I believe it is a little bit of Isaiah's vision, and has the capacity to build the world into one of peace and justice. I'm well aware that we have lots of hard times ahead (and I am terrified of the boundaries I'm going to have to have as a parent, please be gentle with me) but I believe you are worth it.

So, anyway, I see why a prospective parent would be scared. And I am gaining a new appreciation for the ways in which a new generation provides new opportunities: 1) for regeneration, 2) for making right the things we haven’t gotten right yet, and 3) hope for the future. We are hoping to raise a child to know God's love, follow Jesus, and speak with and for the people. And I find myself reflecting on how I hope this community will continue to exist and teach and raise up future generations to do the same. Given all this, I see why a prospective parent would choose to stick with the God of Liberation, of Hope, and of Peace. And I see why Mary was amazed at her luck in getting the chance to do so. Being a part of the work of God is a blessing and a great opportunity. Thanks be to God. Amen

1 Someone pointed out after worship that a rising tide may lift all boats, but it doesn't help people who don't have boats.

#Thinking Church #Progressive Christianity #FUMC Schenectady #UMC #Sorry about the UMC world #Rev Sara E Baron #Magnificat #Mother Mary #luke #my boyfriend Isaiah #rising tide

0 notes

logicalabsurdity · 7 years

Text

But what about vampire history teachers. Vampires who read something from a text book then proceed to light the book on fire and throw it out the window because “No. that’s not even close to what really happened. Listen up nerds I’m about to teach you what really happened in France during the revolution”

#reblog #text #vampires #fantasy #long post

363K notes · View notes

thewahookid · 3 years

Link

We are challenged to have great faith!!! August 30, 2021

Dear Family of Mary!

Here is the August 25, 2021 Message from Our Lady, Queen of Peace:

Homily for August 28, 2021, English Mass, Medjugorje – Fr. Kevin McKeever

End of part 1! Part 2 tomorrow!

(Homily of Fr. Kevin McKeever, August 28, 2021 – English Mass Medjugorje)

https://marytv.tv/english-homily-in-medjugorje-2/?smid=iAzb9cs0lQW&slid=IRBKmbjFsDA

In Jesus, Mary and Joseph! Cathy Nolan Mary TV 2021

0 notes

ltworld · 4 years

Text

Revelation, Coronavirus, and the Mark of the Beast: How Should Christians Read the Bible’s Most Fascinating Book? Part 3

Kevin DeYoung

I started this series when the whole world was talking about COVID-19, and some people were wondering if the signs of Revelation were unfolding—or would soon unfold—before our eyes. That’s what prompted these three posts on how to read the book of Revelation. Let me bring this short series to a close by trying to explain what may be the most famous sign in Revelation: the mark of the beast.

In order to understand the mark of the beast in Revelation 13:18, we need to see what is happening in the rest of the chapter. In the first half of chapter 13, we’re introduced to a beast from the sea. This beast is broadly representative of the political sphere. In the second half of chapter 13, we are introduced to a beast from the earth. This beast is broadly representative of the religious sphere. If the first beast is the perversion of the state, the second beast is the perversion of true worship.

With that as a basic outline, let’s go verse by verse through the second half of the chapter. Then I saw another beast rising out of the earth. It had two horns like a lamb and it spoke like a dragon (v. 11).

This imagery comes from Daniel 8 where Daniel sees a vision of a ram with two horns. That’s where the picture comes from, but what it points to is a counterfeit Christ. This beast looks like Christ, the lamb, but speaks the lies of the dragon, that is, the Devil.

Remember, the first beast is the perversion of the state, and the second beast is the perversion of Christianity. We shouldn’t expect false religion to appear immediately and obviously false. We should expect other religions to talk about love and morality. We should expect there to be many similarities, some real and some perceived, between true Christianity and false Christianity. We should expect false Christian cults and perversions to speak highly of Jesus. We should expect them to talk about the cross. We should expect similar religious language and themes, which is why we must be wise. The beast may look a lamb, but if you are discerning, you will hear that the voice is the voice of a dragon.

It exercises all the authority of the first beast in its presence, and makes the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast, whose mortal wound was healed (v. 12).

The second beast is an accomplice to the first. He acts on his behalf and leads people to worship him. In the first century there was a large imperial cult. There were priests and sacred rituals and officials insisting on the deity of the emperor. They encouraged, and sometimes made mandatory, the worship of the state. Religion is at its worst when it does nothing but lends credence to and encourages support of the corrupt and blasphemous state.

We all feel the need to experience something bigger than ourselves. We all want to touch transcendence. We were created to worship God. There is something hard-wired in all humans that compels us to search after the divine or find something spiritual. That’s the good news. God made us for God.

The bad news is the human heart is an idol factory. We find God in all the wrong places. The Devil is perfectly happy to have everyone searching for God. He is entirely content to have all of us on a spiritual journey looking for transcendence. There’s a reason hardly anyone is an atheist. The Devil doesn’t care if people believe in God. He just doesn’t want people to believe in and be satisfied in Jesus Christ. So if we can find a religious-like feeling in political activism or spirituality in the entertainment industry or experience transcendence in art or make a god out of the family, then the Devil has won. The second beast lives wherever the Devil entices people to worship something man-made, to make an idolatrous image out of anything other than Jesus Christ, who alone is the image of the invisible God.

It performs great signs, even making fire come down from heaven to earth in front of people, and by the signs that it is allowed to work in the presence of the beast it deceives those who dwell on earth, telling them to make an image for the beast that was wounded by the sword and yet lived (vv. 13-14).

The second beast is a false prophet. Three times, Revelation makes reference to the beast and the false prophet (16:13; 19:20; 20:10). The second beast is the Minister of Propaganda, deceiving people to follow after the first beast. In verse 11, we saw the second beast as a false Christ. Now we see him as a false Elijah. Elijah, you recall, called down fire from heaven to burn up the sacrifices in full view of the prophets of Baal. The beast can do impressive feats just like Elijah. Don’t think false religion will appear worthless. Idolatry will boast of great accomplishments, even miracles. The priests of Egypt had their secret arts too. Don’t be impressed with mere signs unless they point to the Son that you might be impressed with him.

And it was allowed to give breath to the image of the beast, so that the image of the beast might even speak and might cause those who would not worship the image of the beast to be slain (v. 15).

“He was given power to give breath to the image of the first beast.” In other words, the second beast persuades the world that the image of the first beast is truly God. In the first century, this meant that the religious establishment convinced people that they should worship statues and images of Caesar. In our day, the beast may not directly instruct us to worship the state or the president, but he still functions as the mouthpiece for the Devil. He entices us to make money the desire of our hearts. He convinces us that sex will be most fulfilling when it is most free of commitment and ethical norms. He lies to us about the lasting value of fame and power and professional success and academic prestige. The beast gives breath to these things so that they seem god-like in our eyes. We must have them. We will not be happy or fulfilled or valuable without them.

Also it causes all, both small and great, both rich and poor, both free and slave, to be marked on the right hand or the forehead, so that no one can buy or sell unless he has the mark, that is, the name of the beast or the number of its name (vv. 16-17).

No one knows exactly where this imagery comes from or if it even has allusion to anything in the first century. It cold be an allusion to slave’s branding, or soldier’s tattoo, or some practice of compulsory idol worship developing in the first century. Any or all of these may serve as background imagery for these verses, but the mark in reality is not a visible mark. It is an invisible spiritual mark. The righteous and believing have the Father’s name written on their foreheads, and the wicked and unbelieving have the name of the beast. In both case we are talking about a spiritual mark, an invisible stamp of approval. This verse has nothing to do with bar codes or UPC labels or credit card numbers or Social Security numbers. The point of these verses is much simpler: if you don’t compromise with the worldly system, you will suffer. In the first century, this meant that your refusal to worship Caesar (to be spiritually identified with the beast) could mean persecution or discrimination or alienation. The world has a way of operating and when we choose a different way, we must be prepared for setbacks, strange looks, and often shame and suffering.

This calls for wisdom: let the one who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man, and his number is 666 (v. 18).

This is probably the most debated verse in Revelation. It certainly is the verse that has produced the most fruitless debate. All sorts of numerical schemes have been concocted in various languages to try to decode 666. Here’s a list of referents I’ve seen for 666: Caligula, Domitian, Caesar God, Lateinos (the Roman Empire), “beast,” Antemus, Phoebus, Gensericus, Balaam, Mohammed, Martin Luther, Oliver Cromwell, Kaiser (Wilhelm), Hitler, the Nicolaitans, Euanthas, Teitan (Titans), the initials of the Roman emperors from Julius Caesar to Vespasian (minus Otho and Vitellius), the triangular number of 36 which is the triangular number of 8 which is significant because 8 is associated with Gnosticism or because the Antichrist in Revelation 17 is called the eighth king, the Latin Kingdom, the Italian Church, various Popes, all the Popes, the phrase “Vicar of the Son of God” and phrases like it, Ronald Reagan, and William Jefferson Clinton. I’m sure there are more.

All of these solutions are calculated by a process known as gematria. In the ancient world every letter corresponded to a number, just like A might equal 1, and B equal 2, C equal 3, and so on. The numbering scheme was often more complicated, but that’s the idea. Every letter could also be a number, so names could be translated into numbers. Kevin, for example, in our simplified scheme would be 11+5+22+9+14, which equals 61. That’s gematria. And people did use it in the ancient world, more than we think. There’s a text that identifies Jesus’s gematria name as 888, which is supposed to be significant because 8 is the number of re-creation. So through all sorts of complicated gematria calculations in different languages, people have come up with all the names in the list above.

Some of the names in the list are absurd. Most of the interpretations are not widely followed. The only name that has really gotten a strong following is Nero. If you take the Greek Neron Kaisar and transliterate it into Hebrew you get 50+200+6+50 and then 100+60+200, all of which together equals 666.

A possible corroboration for this view can be found in the Latin version of his name. Neron Kaiser transliterated in Latin gives you 616, which is the number of the beast in some alternative manuscripts (also the area code for Grand Rapids, Michigan). Nero fits with the story line of Revelation better than the other alternatives. Nero killed himself in AD 68, but it was rumored that he would come back to life or was still living, just like the beast received a fatal wound that was healed. So, according to many scholars, 666 is most logically a reference to Nero. And by putting Nero in the form of a riddle like this, it protected the Christians from charges of sedition and further persecution.

So the number of the beast could refer to Nero. That’s the most plausible person to be connected with 666. But there are also problems with the calculation.

First, it is far from certain that most of John’s audience would have known Hebrew. Some were probably Jewish Christians who understood Hebrew, but most certainly, many were not. So relying on your readers to not only know gematria but also transliterate a name into another language they may not have known seems like a poor way to communicate, unless John wasn’t interested in his audience knowing the answer to the puzzle.

Second, to come up with 666, you have to spell Neron Kaisar incorrectly in Hebrew. You have to leave out a yodh, which some claim was an acceptable spelling, but it was certainly not the normal usage.

Third, none of the early church fathers calculated Neron Kaisar from 666. There is a fifth-century document that calculates Nero, but it uses the word antichristus to get 616.

Fourth, verse 18 does not call us to solve a riddle. When it says, “let him calculate the number,” the solution is given in the next line. The number is 666. We are not told to solve the question of 666. We are told that 666 is the answer to the question. More on that in a moment.

Fifth, finding hidden, precise meanings in numbers is not the way numbers work in Revelation. The imagery in Revelation is broader and less exact. The church is symbolized with pictures (the 24 elders, the two witnesses, the woman) and a number (144,000). The church age is symbolized by pictures (the measured temple, the trampled witnesses, the woman protected in the wilderness) and numbers (42 months, 1260 days, 3 ½ years). Likewise, false religion is symbolized by a picture (the beast) and a number (666). In each case, the pictures and numbers mean something, but they refer to general truths, not to specific people or referents.

Sixth, if dozens of names can be calculated from 666, how effective is this means of communication? As one author puts it, it doesn’t tell us much that a certain key fits the lock, if it’s a lock that works with almost any key. I once came across these three tongue-in-cheek “rules” for calculating the number of the beast: if the proper name doesn’t work, add a title; if Greek doesn’t work try Hebrew or Latin; if that doesn’t work try a different spelling. That’s more or less the approach most people take, and it yields a hundred different answers.

So if 666 isn’t code for Nero or anyone else, what does it mean? Here’s my humble opinion (he said humbly!): 666 is not meant to be a riddle hiding the name of the beast; 666 is simply the name and number of the beast. The number 666 is man’s number (cf. 21:17). You could understand this to mean “666 is a number of a man” or “666 is the number of man.” I think it’s the latter.

What have we seen with this second beast? He is a counterfeit. He leads people into false religion. So how do you express numerically counterfeit religion? 7 is the number of perfection and holy completion in the book of Revelation (7 churches, 7 lampstands, 7 eyes, 7 seals, 7 trumpets, and so on). The number 6, then, would be the number of imperfection and unholy incompletion. If 7 is the number for God, then 6 is the number of that most resembles, but is not, God—namely, man.

In other words, 666 is man’s counterfeit to the holy Trinity of 777. The Africa Bible Commentary puts it well:

The beast seems to be near perfection and almost messianic; it is, after all, a caricature of the Lamb who was slain (13:3, 11, 13). But it is not perfect, and that makes all the difference. It is actually diabolically and utterly opposed to God (13:4). The number 666 represents a threefold falling short of perfection (dragon: 6, beast: 6, false prophet: 6). But it is close to perfection, and has most of the hallmarks of truth, and so can easily deceive. No wonder wisdom is required!

All of which is to say, whatever you think of the way the medical establishment and the media and our politicians have handled this global pandemic, the mark of the beast is not going to be found in an implanted microchip. If, however, doctors or politicians or members of the media or anyone else, for that matter, elevates himself to a position of Godlike authority and knowledge, then that is what Revelation warns Christians against. Whatever or whomever appears as true Christianity in order to draw us away to some human counterfeit, that is the work of the beast, and his number is 666.

Note: This post was first published through The Gospel Coalition website.

#deyoung #revelation

1 note · View note

firstumcschenectady · 7 years

Text

“Indictment of the Temple” based on Deuteronomy 6:4-5; Leviticus 19:18; and Mark 11:15-19

Home Missioner Kevin M. Nelson and Rev. Sara E. BaronFirst United Methodist Church of Schenectady603 State St. Schenectady, NY 12305http://fumcschenectady.org/For us, the primary question is, “Why did Jesus overturn the tables in the Temple?” We were both raised with one explanation, and have come to believe another one entirely!

A man named Rabbi Hillel was said to live an extraordinarily long life, born around 110 BCE, about a century before Jesus’ birth, and lived into Jesus’ early years, around 10-20 CE. His primary rival in thought was Shammai. Once, they say, a Gentile approached Hillel and Shammai and challenged them to explain the Torah to him while he stood on one foot. Shammai dismissed the man. Hillel accepted the question but gently chastised the man by responding, “What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole of the Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn.”1 If this brings to mind anything Jesus said, I don’t think it is a coincidence.

The Gospel of Mark records an episode that rings similar to that experienced by Shammai and Hillel. This happens during the testing of Jesus’ teachings and authority in the days that followed the Temple episode that my mother-in-law, Joan, read a few minutes ago. In it, Jesus was asked which commandment is the greatest. Jesus answered that the Shema ( this morning’s Deuteronomy passage—love God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength) is the greatest, and loving our neighbor as ourselves (this morning’s Leviticus passage read by my mother, Elizabeth) is the second greatest.

These commands are at the heart of how Jesus understood God’s nature; one of love, justice and compassion, and they are central to the individual and collective ways in which we are to live out our lives. They are also going to be central to why Jesus was at the Temple on the last Monday of his life. In order to explain this, let us provide some more context.

Jesus lived from around 4 BCE to around 30 CE. He was raised in Galilee, an area that had been re-colonized by faithful Jews and was an impoverished backwater of the Roman Empire. In particular, he grew up in Nazareth, a tiny village that was 4 miles from the CITY of Sepphoris. Sepphoris had been part of a revolt against the Roman Empire in 4 BCE, in response to the death of Herod who had brutally oppressed everyone under his reign. In response, the Empire had sent in legions of troops to reconquer the city, leveling much of it, and selling those who had led the revolt into slavery.2

Did you hear that? Approximately the year Jesus was born, the city under whose shadow he was raised, was leveled by the Empire. It is even likely that his father's work was in rebuilding the city. The revolt, and its aftermath, would have infiltrated his consciousness in ways similar to kids born in 2001 in New York City.

The Roman Empire was an empire in all of the traditional ways that empires are empires. It existed to extract wealth from the people it conquered in order to give the wealth to powerful elites. In his book, “Jesus: Uncovering the Life, Teachings, and Relevance of a Religious Revolutionary,” which was chosen by the Intersectional Justice Committee for the January book discussion, Marcus Borg refers to the Roman Empire as a preindustrial agricultural domination system. Domination systems emerged about 5000 years ago when humans figured out how to produce metal and domesticate animals (at roughly the same time). Domesticating animals enabled larger scale agriculture and thus agricultural surplus and larger scale societies. Surplus also meant enabling the existence of wealth, which, when combined with larger societies, led to motivation for domination, at a larger scale.3

Preindustrial agricultural domination looked something like devising systems through which taxation enabled wealth to flow upward, thus causing people to live on the edge of subsistence and not just poverty, but indentured servitude and slavery. In other words, virtually everyone who wasn’t part of the elite, was a peasant. Agriculture, and thus land, was a family’s primary source of productivity. A bad year for crops could lead to debt, and in a subsistence world, it was all but impossible to produce enough to pay off debt once a family fell into debt. As little as one bad year for crops could lead to debt, potentially loss of your land and indentured servitude in which you were working the same land but now someone else owned it and gained the productivity from the land and your labor. As little as two or three bad years could lead to loss of land and slavery.4

In the system Jesus lived under, wealth was thus derived from farming and the wealth flowed up to the ruler and his aristocrats. In fact, between 1/2 and 2/3 of all production ended up in the hands of the elite 1-2% of the society, making them VERY wealthy. They used some of this wealth to maintain armies in order to keep the wealth, and the role of religion was to legitimate the concentration of wealth by claiming the ruler as ruling by Divine will.5 Some of this should sound familiar from either history class or the newspaper. ;)

In this system, the poor, who comprised at least 90% of the population, worked very hard and died very young. Those who survived childhood lived to an average age of 30. The production they engaged in benefited the elites who tended to live to an average age of 70. Now, the Roman Empire wasn't unique at all. This was exactly the same domination system that the proto-Israelites had encountered in Egypt and from which they had experienced God leading them into freedom. This was also the same domination system that their own kings had often attempted to implement, although their kings were kept a bit in check by the prophets CONSTANTLY calling them out.

This system was well known, but it stood in marked contrast with the world as envisioned by God, shared by Moses, articulated by the prophets, and sought by the people. The vision laid out in the Torah starts by giving each family access to their own land to farm. It is designed carefully, intended to prevent any system where a group of people could economically dominate any other people, and THUS intended to prevent a situation where a peasant class could exist and be dominated. The vision of God in the Torah involved each family having access to land AND being able to reap its benefits. The vision of God in the Torah requires making food accessible even to widows, orphans, and foreigners – the only ones who wouldn't have access to land. The vision of God in the Torah requires sharing 10% of food production in order to BOTH feed the priests AND feed the hungry. The vision of God in the Torah aims to keep society level so that no one dominates and no one is dominated. That is the faith of the Jews.

That is the faith that the Temple was built to support. The Temple stood as a symbol of that faith, as a way to remember that faith, and as a way to enact that faith. The Temple stood near but APART from the King's palace, with an intention to keep powers separate and accountable.

The Roman Empire preferred to keep local leadership in place when it took over new areas. However, it made the leadership accountable to the Empire and required that the leadership do the work of gathering up the wealth of the people to “pay its taxes.” Furthermore, it replaced “local” leadership as it deemed necessary to maintain stability and keep the money flowing upward. To be clear, this means Rome appointed the high priest, and the appointment lasted only so long as Rome was pleased with him. From 6 CE to 66 CE, Rome appointed 18 high priests.6 The Roman Empire wasn't stupid. It knew that the real power in Israel by the time of Jesus was in the Temple – there hadn't been a monarch in centuries. The power that the Temple derived from its function and symbolism as the centerpiece of living out God's vision for a JUST society was thus co-opted for the sake of the domination system and its insatiable hunger for greater wealth.

Thus, the Temple that stood as an emblem and reinforcement of God’s justice and compassion was co-opted by the preindustrial, agricultural domination system of the Roman Empire.

The Temple, meant to function as an equalizer, a seat of prayer, and the home of the priests who taught about God's vision was – by the time of Jesus – being used to extract wealth from the peasants for benefit of the already wealthy. Jesus, after his upbringing as a peasant near the aftermath of a revolt, had a particularly high awareness of this system and its brokenness. He was interested in breaking the PERCIEVED power of the Temple which would decrease (or break) its usefulness to those in the domination system who would abuse it. And that brings us to today’s story.

Many Christians, when they think of the seminal moment in Jesus’ life and career, probably think of the Resurrection. In contrast, I understand this story, the story of the indictment of the Temple, to be the seminal moment of Jesus’ career.

In the version we read in Mark, Jesus and his followers enter the Temple and begin what I would recognize as a disruptive act. They knock over the tables and throw out the vendors and the money changers. For most of our lives, we have probably heard this story in a way similar to a summary provided by biblical scholar N.T. Wright in his book, Mark for Everyone. “Many people have thought that Jesus was simply protesting against commercialization. On this view, he only intended to clean up the Temple—to stop all this non-religious activity, and leave it as a place for pure prayer and worship.”7

In Borg's book he reminds us that the courtyard of the Temple was 40 acres! This simple fact gives us reason to question the narrative we've been taught. To create a notable disruption within a space that large would require intentionality, a plan, and many people! Thus, this can't have been a temper-tantrum response to commercial activity. That opens up the question even wider: why did Jesus PLAN a disruption at the Temple?

But first, was this REALLY a disruption? Through Sara’s subversive women of the Bible sermon series, we’ve been talking about subversive actions for months, and this is classic subversive activism 101—staging a disruption. Mark affirms this by sandwiching this episode in between the two halves of the fig tree story, using the fig tree as a symbol for the Temple. In that story, the morning before the Temple episode, as Jesus and his followers are on their way to the Temple, Jesus notes that a fig tree has not produced any fruit and curses it, never mind that figs were out of season. The NRSV version of the Bible titles the concluding section, “The Lesson From the Withered Fig Tree.” In it, when they pass by that fig tree the morning after the Temple disruption, the tree is already dead.

N.T. Wright explains, “But Mark makes it clear, by the placing of the Temple incident within the two halves of the fig tree story, that he sees Jesus’ actions as, again, a dramatic acted parable of judgment. This was Jesus’ way of announcing God’s condemnation of the Temple itself and all that it had become in the national life of Israel.” Jesus judges the tree and it dies. Jesus judges the Temple to kill its power, in particular its power to dominate.

So, why did Jesus plan a disruption at the Temple? It was so Jesus could indict the Temple, knowing that between this action and his Palm Sunday entrance the day before, it would likely result in his death. Indeed, it is within the Temple passage that the author of Mark notes for the first time that the chief priests and scribes decided to kill Jesus and began plotting to this effect. The author of Mark illustrated Jesus’ plan through the fig tree, but a contemporaneous audience would also have recognized it through Jesus’ own reported words. “Is it not written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations’? But you have made it a den of robbers.” Marcus Borg helps us to better understand these references, explaining them as a combination of Isaiah 56:7 (the Temple as a house of prayer for all nations) and Jeremiah 7:11. The latter is part of what is called Jeremiah’s “temple sermon,” in which, according to Borg, Jeremiah “warned that it would be destroyed unless those who worshipped there began to practice justice.” Earlier, the text reads

, “If you truly amend your ways and doings, if you truly act justly one with another, if you do not oppress the alien, the orphan and the widow, or shed innocent blood in this place, and if you do not go after gods to your own hurt, then I [God] will dwell with you in this place.” (Jeremiah 7:5-7)

Borg goes on,

Then, still speaking in the name of God, Jeremiah said, ‘Has this house [the temple], which is called by my name, become a den of robbers in your sight?’ The phrase in Hebrew suggests not just thievery, but robbing with violence. In what sense had the temple become ‘a den of robbers,’ a cave of violent ones? In Jeremiah, the meaning is apparent: it was a ‘den of robbers’ precisely because it had become the center of an oppressive system that did not practice justice, but exploited the most vulnerable in society. It was an indictment of the powerful and wealthy elites of his day, centered in the monarchy and temple. Their everyday injustice made them robbers, and they thought of the temple as their safe house and place of security.

Thus, when Jesus called the temple ‘a den of robbers,’ he was not referring to the activity of the money changers and sellers of sacrificial animals. Rather, he indicted the temple authorities as robbers who collaborated with the robbers at the top of the imperial domination system. They had made the temple into a den of robbing and violence. Jesus’ action was not a cleansing of the temple, but an indictment of the temple. The teaching explains the act. Indeed, it was the reason for the act.”

This was why Jesus planned a disruption of the temple. This is why it was worth it to him to accept the consequences of having publically indicted the Temple and its authority.

We don't live in a preindustrial, agricultural domination system anymore. Obviously. Now we live in a post-industrial, non-agricultural, domination system. The rules are both different and the same. The work of the many is still used to enrich the few, although we have new ways of blaming the many for not being wealthy themselves. Our domination system is dependent on racism, sexism, transphobia, heteronormativity, xenophobia, and all kinds of other ways of dehumanizing God's beloved people.

The system falls apart when we look at each other, no matter the differences, and see another human being, a beloved person of God, worthwhile and worth listening to. However, it is not just that we are called to do this individually. Like Jesus, we need to pay attention to how our institutions (including faith traditions) are being systematically used as part of the domination system. Then, like Jesus, we need to disrupt the system. It turns out this Temple cleansing is NOT, as many of us thought, the one counter-example to an otherwise calm and loving Jesus. This story is the epitome of Jesus loving God's people, it is Jesus loving God's people enough to upset the system to give them a chance, even when it would inevitably lead to his own death.

Today, we are similarly called to disrupt. It may or may not involve dramatic acts of disruption. However, when we see actions of thievery, of state-sanctioned robbery, of oppressive political systems that do not practice justice and instead create legal structures for the exploitation of the most vulnerable in society—we are called to indict the powers that do such things and to seek ways to disrupt these actions. Look for the ways in which you can step outside of your normal behaviors in order to dramatize, shed light on, injustice and indict the powers behind it. Look for the ways in which you can step outside of your normal behaviors and activities in order to advocate for the vulnerable, the marginalized and exploited. Look for the ways in which you can work collectively and organize in order to address the systems that marginalize and exploit the vulnerable. Imagine these actions and others like them. Sit with whatever discomfort these thoughts may bring. Pray over how you are called to respond. Then, join with others to do. As Jesus did. Amen.

1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillel_the_Elder accessed March 14, 2017.

2Marcus Borg, “Jesus: Uncovering the Life, Teachings, and Relevance of a Religious Revolutionary” (USA: HarperOne, 2006) page 89-93.

3 Borg, 79-80.

4Borg, 79-80.

5Borg 81-82.

6 Borg, 90.

7N.T. Wright, Mark for Everyone, (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004), p. 151.

Home Missioner Kevin M. Nelson and Rev. Sara E. Baron

First United Methodist Church of Schenectady

603 State St. Schenectady, NY 12305

http://fumcschenectady.org/

https://www.facebook.com/FUMCSchenectady

#SmashthePatriarchy #Indicting The Temple #Subversive Jesus #Temple is as Temple Does #Home Missioners Preach #RevSaraEBaron #FUMC Schenectady #UMC #Schenectady #Thinking Church #Progressive Christianity #Day After The Wedding #Married People Preach #Not What We Grew Up With #Hi Mom!

0 notes