#a response to “Lutheran=bad”

[buggie-hagen]

Justification, then, is for Luther something altogether different than the way it is portrayed in most NPP descriptions. It signals a new creation by the effective or performative Word of God. It is not somehow divorced from the activity of the Holy Spirit. At one level it does address concerns and real lives of individuals (how could it not?) But justification, for Luther, is also experienced within the wider eschatological movement towards the renewal of creation effected by the Word. This inaugurated eschatology involves the church. There is no justification without the means of grace. There is no means of grace without the church and the gospel of Jesus Christ it proclaims in Word and Sacrament.

~Erik Heen, “A Lutheran Response to the New Perspective on Paul” Lutheran Quarterly 24 (2010), 282.

#NPP #new perspective on paul #a response to “Lutheran=bad”

[period-dramallama]

Review: The Concubine by Christopher Bae Rae

TLDR: The first 3 chapters are great, the last third is great, the middle bit is kinda meh. I want to proofread and tweak this book, but overall I could recommend it to someone really into Anne Boleyn.

Overall this is a good depiction of how events evolve, with the delineation of responsibility between King and Cromwell fuzzy. A lot of factors combine to make this storm of disaster.

For @fideidefenswhore xxx many thanks for buying this and The King's Mind for me, I hope the review entertains.

We begin with Anne waiting impatiently for news of the death of 'Aragon' (Chris, please just call her the Princess Dowager. Aragon is not a surname!)

She has chosen Edward for her unborn son's name. A fitting choice, and chock full of dramatic irony, especially as Anne isn't wrong that a king called Edward will 'cleanse England of popery'. Anne's ambition for her son is sad because we know what will happen, but there is an unpleasant streak to Anne who imagines how "sweet" Princess Mary's death would be.

"All is well and all manner of things will be well." It's nice to see Rae has at least a passing knowledge of the Bible- better than most Tudor novelists.

"Her heart was black!"

Anne:

I'm narrowing my eyes at the characterisation of Janes Seymour and Rochford but it's not TOO bad. Could be worse.

Henry examining the heart was a great touch. The tension, the duality of his response: amazement at the human body but also a Christian revulsion/fear/disappointment at its animalness. The tension felt very Tudor, Christian, and (renaissance) humanist all at once.

Also his suspicion at Katherine's death feeds nicely into his paranoia. Will whoever did it stop at Katherine? It's a good moment for his character arc. Anne's laughing at the heart is also in character in a dark-sense-of-humour kind of way.

"Henry does not care to admit it, even to himself, but he sometimes feels a sensation of being overwhelmed by her energy and confidence, an uncomfortable intimation that she does not always quite remember her place. A feeling that she may in some ways be quicker and cleverer than he is."

It would be nice to have some more dialogue. Anne and Henry spend a happy evening together and the narration tells us about it but it would be nice to hear them banter and bounce off each other, especially given what's going to happen.

Henry doesn't seem that enthusiastic about Katherine in his dream but it IS a dream so I wouldn't be surprised if he's got a case of self-serving memory and his brain has retconned any memories of happiness with Katherine.

"The continuance of your house must be seen to be assured, for without that the continuance of their own is in peril." A good point.

Rae handled the yellow-wearing incident well: Anne doesn't want to, but she didn't persuade Henry in time.

"She waves her hand, as if this might be sufficient to consign Mary to some kind of perpetual limbo."

I am very pleased to see an acknowledgement that Anabaptists exist and are persecuted by Protestants, as they're ignored in 99.9% of Tudor novels especially Protestant-leaning novels: "These are madmen, their views are too extreme for any God-fearing Lutheran and they must be suppressed. But such people are a sign of these times." BUT Protestantism is not about going forward, but BACK- back to an ideal golden age late antiquity Christianity of simple purity. Protestantism in this novel comes across like innovation which is certainly not how Protestants like Anne would have seen it. (yes I know the word Protestant itself is anachronistic because it's a 1550s word but bear with me).

Elizabeth Boleyn is well written: blunt, shrewd, loving but not emotive, but also not judged for having a stiff upper lip. "her mother comes and bustles, exuding a strained air of optimism." I like this portrayal of Elizabeth as being strong for other people, it's a nice bit of characterisation for a minor character. There's a good back and forth between Norfolk, Anne and the Boleyn parents.

Fat Wolsey stereotype...did Anne really hate him? Some historians have questioned that. It would have been interesting to see a fresher interpretation of their interactions.

We're leaning hard into the "Thomas More is a sadist torturing people in his house and he loves burning people" myth BUT I will give it half a pass because it's Anne's perspective and it makes sense she'd unquestioningly absorb Protestant gossip. It also leans hard into Fisher and More being personal enemies of Anne, saying they refused the oath to the succession when it was the supremacy More refused to swear to. More was willing to swear to the succession, and it was Anne's own ally Cranmer who suggested a compromise: More swearing to the succession alone.

Opening a chapter with Henry coming to from the jousting accident was very effective because we are like Henry, we don't have the immediate knowledge of what just happened (in theory anyway lol we know the history.)

'Something very bad must have happened to him.' You don't say.

I think Rae's portrayal of Norfolk is a little OTT. Don't get me wrong, I hate Norfolk, I don't give him a nuanced sympathetic portrayal in my own writing- he's ruthless, condescending, materialistic, greedy, and obsessed with hierarchy to the point of comedy- but I think it's OTT to make him literally stinky. Norfolk was a git but he was an aristocratic git, so there's no reason for him not to cover himself in rosewater or musk or civet or rose oil and chew cloves and mint for fresh breath.

"It's not for the first time that she imagines that the duke's death would not cause her any great or lasting sorrow." Spitting facts.

"These men, with their constant needing, wanting, thrusting- can they not ever leave off?" I can see the real Anne thinking this.

Cromwell is called the chancellor, but that was Audley- as Rae says later in the book. What gives? Is this a different chancellorship? Rae really really really wants to keep reminding us that Cromwell is an efficient fixer who knows 'where everything is and who it belongs to.' He is described as having a 'prodigious capacity for work' and I'm pretty sure I've seen that exact phrase in a history book.

Anne's panic and shock written very well: "She stares at the cloth and the stain, as if it is a trick of the light and gazing at it intently enough might cause it to disappear."

Christopher loves adding in definite articles. "The relief floods through her" "the tears staining her pretty cheeks" "a part of" rather than "part of". "Skill at the jousting" "threatened with the torture".

But he also misses out words and letters. I had to silence my inner editor reading this, I was itching to get my red pen, particularly in the middle third of the book. 'You' where it should be 'your', 'away' when it should be 'way' 'when sings' instead of 'when he sings' 'is wife' instead of 'his wife'. 'He is mind is elsewhere'. Sometimes Rae will say the same thing twice but in different words. I'm itching to tidy up some of these sentences.

"Soon enough they are ensconced together in the study very privately and Cromwell can speak his mind having first taken the precaution of having his guest sign a solemn of secrecy."

"Cromwell asks his guest if he would care to view the current progress of the works he is undertaking on the new accommodation and the splendid garden."

"the style favoured by old Granny Beaufort." I'm wincing.

Hire me as a proofreader, Chris!! Let me tidy your sentences!! My rates are super duper reasonable!! ;) xx

"She must be bright and gay" I was surprised to see such an antiquated use of 'gay' in a book published AFTER 2010.

"she must amuse and entertain him as only she can do, she must have faith in their future and give him confidence in it."

The image of their relationship as a sinking ship works particularly well given that ship-jewel she gave him with the self-insert maiden onboard.

If an old woman is talking shit about you why do you eat her gift of pastries?! She's probably spat in them AT LEAST.

Sir 'Nick''s suggestions to Henry are so heavy-handed that the manipulation is almost darkly comedic.

I am narrowing my eyes at Chapuys contemplating 'the austere beauty' of the chapel at Austin Friars. It's just a little early for Protestant whitewash aesthetics to come in. I'll give it a pass.

"The king's amours are not my affair, my dear Eustace."

"I can see that you are unhappy about these arrangements, and of course I sympathise. I do not much like them myself...Seymour having the king's ear, or to dwell on what nonsense he may be pouring into it. But I do not think we should be unduly alarmed about any of this." Cromwell is very clever here, using 'we' and joining their interests together to convincingly sound like he's Anne's ally.

"The ambassador is more than capable of building towering insubstantial castles of speculation in the air; he is also a master of the direct question." Good! But Chapuys would talk of Christendom, not a brotherhood of Catholic nations.

I do think Chris should have read Macculloch on Cromwell, because this Cromwell is too secular. "Survival is in the end his only goal." As Macculloch showed, Cromwell took risks for the sake of the reformation and he also made political errors because he wanted to found a political dynasty through his son Gregory. So Cromwell has multiple motives: yes he wants money, power, prestige, etc., but he is devout too. "not a wit, a raconteur, a teller of tales." It's unfair on Cromwell to portray him as someone who can't amuse highborn ladies: the real Cromwell was an outgoing, hail fellow well met kind of guy.

The Tudor court does feel rather depopulated, Anne is alone with Nan a lot. Where are her other ladies? they tend to vanish.

The king eating partridge with a cherry sauce, a nice detail as IIRC cherries were a favourite of Henry's. "His smile congeals upon his face into a cold mask of reserve."

The memory of being 6 years old and sheltering in the Tower was a good character moment for Henry, especially him recreating the rebellion with his toys. There's a cold pride to Elizabeth of York as well as the typical motherly tenderness, which I like. She was born a Princess after all.

"Do you follow?" He follows. Cromwell has no trouble following." Double meanings! We love double meanings!

Nan Gainsford trying to help Anne by mentioning Mark Smeaton's crush...oh, Nan. A great moment of tragedy. "Cromwell looks at her, quietly recording every word for a remembrance." Later on "Anne nods, as always Nan's good counsel can be relied upon."

I do think this story is missing some key parts, like the scene where Chapuys around Easter 1536 was forced to publicly acknowledge Anne as queen, suggesting the plot to destroy her was rather last minute. Henry orchestrated that little diplomatic trap, and it doesn't really fit Rae's framing of events. Also the countess of Worcester should have been involved in Anne's downfall, but instead it's Jane Rochford.

The meeting with Lady Rochford is enjoyable as fiction but it seems unclear whether she is on Anne's side or not. The real Jane wouldn't want Anne to fall- her fortunes are tied to Anne as history showed: when the Boleyns fell Jane would never be as rich again.

"[Anne] has thought of Cromwell for so long as an ally." Has she??? At the beginning of the book she didn't trust him in the slightest so why is she so taken aback?

"In these times of division and dissent it is so easy to assume that those who share our opinions on matters of faith and religion are somehow bound to be our friends." But she didn't assume!

I like the description of Cromwell being like a bat, it makes a change from comparing him to a pig, which is lazy and boring and unoriginal and uncreative and unfunny.

"Once a single brick is loose, the wall will be brought down quite easily." "this notion, and the twisting, spiralling curlicues of imagined consequence which may issue from it." "the tower of fantasy spirals upwards, out of control."

Henry goes from 'Smeaton won't confess to something that isn't true' to 'I think I've been deceived' back to awareness alarmingly quickly.

"he has endured this kind of assault before, but it was a long time ago, in a blacksmith's yard in Putney, with another man who had absolute power over him". Someone's read Wolf Hall.

Jane Rochford is more malicious here than the evidence suggests.

"She studies Jane's insolent look, and begins to think she might do well to ask George to keep his wife at home in future. If she is allowed to remain at court she will cause trouble somehow. But what ails her? What does she hope to gain from it?"

"he is still a little puzzled by her motivation, because the naïve and trusting might think that her interest lay with the Boleyns since she is married to George, whereas in fact she seems to be determined to do everything in her power to destroy him."

CHRIS. YOU ARE SO CLOSE TO GETTING IT. It's frustrating because Rae is good enough as a fiction writer to spot the obvious holes, but not knowledgeable enough in this history to fix them. Like yes, Anne and George could have sent Jane away if they didn't like her! That suggests they probably DID LIKE HER!

He tries to fix it by having Jane want Anne "disgraced, brought down a peg two, and abandoned by the King...she has done whatever she could think of to help to bring such a conclusion about" that Jane is "nothing more than Anne's lady in waiting." But it doesn't make sense! If Anne were abandoned by the king, this proud and covetous Jane would see her own position decline. She isn't just Anne's lady in waiting- she's her sister in law! She has a fancy bed with Rochford knots and a fancy counterpane! Under Anne's replacement she would just be...another lady in waiting! Also we have Jane's signature and Jane "scratching out her mark" implies she can't write, which is inaccurate.

Smeaton saying "I have risen by my own talents and found favour" is a nice subtle parallel to Cromwell's own rise, which makes Smeaton's fall all the more tragic, as a foil to Cromwell.

Cromwell using the classic 'sign here without seeing the full document because it's hidden by the document above' from I, Claudius.

At Chateau Vert Jane was Constancy IIRC.

"a galliard she knows very well, so beautiful, sad and stately." I think Rae is thinking of a pavane here, a galliard is an upbeat dance.

"although she must suffer patiently the king's delight in revels and pageants, Katherine of Aragon does not care much for this kind of lewd and brazen display, and thinks privately that dancing is a business best left to whores and drunkards." I think this is an unfair portrayal of Katherine. She was pious, but she wasn't a killjoy.

The juxtaposition between Anne falling down into despair next to Henry's mood 'rising' is very effective, like he's draining her like a vampire. Henry believing his own lies and turning his thoughts to "pleasure and pastime with good company". I saw what you did there, Chris.

There are some excellent moments of extreme black comedy in this. "They must believe that there was a conspiracy against myself, not one that has been crudely fashioned against the Queen.' Cromwell winces. Crudely fashioned?"

"It is simple enough, she is to be burned alive, according to the law. This provokes a murmuring from the Lords, and Norfolk looks puzzled until he remembers to add that the king in his great mercy is expected to commute this to beheading."

#historical fiction #book reviews #my reviews

[kyuhu]

Tag Game To Better Know You! Send this to people you’d like to know better!

Tagged by @lithugraph thank you so much ;v;/

What book are you currently reading?

Hahah tbh I'm re-reading the Scum Villain's Self-Saving System because I got my hands on the printed version lately ;v;

What’s your favorite movie you saw in theaters this year?

Hmm...I haven't seen many movies in the theaters this year so I guess it has to be the newest Detective Conan movie, oh and Encanto!

What do you usually wear?

Black or dark blue turtlenecks, also a vest that used to belong to my dad together with my scarf and socks my grandma knitted!

How tall are you?

164 cm

What’s your Star Sign? Do you share a birthday with a celebrity or a historical event? 

Virgo and I share a birthday with Hatsune Miku and those twins from Gravity Falls apparently? It's also the day Princess Diana died sfsahg

Do you go by your name or a nick-name?

I go by my name but some of my oldest friends use nicknames for me! I'm also responsible for for a lot of nicknames, which I'm proud of haha.

Did you grow up to become what you wanted to be when you were a child?

Uhh... I mean I tried and I'm still trying but sometimes giving your best isn't enough sadly

Are you in a relationship? If not, who is your crush if you have one?

I'm not in a relationship and I'm pretty sure I'll never be. I'm not a suitable person for things like that hahaha

What’s something you’re good at vs. something you’re bad at?

hmm...I think I'm good at wrapping gifts and also working under pressure I'm bad at smalltalk, beeing an interesting conversation partner, voicing my anger and making decisions etc. ;v;

Dogs or cats?

Cats! I used to have a cat, he was entirely black and always came to me when I made a whistle noise ;v;

If you draw/write, or create in any way, what’s your favorite picture/favorite line/favorite etc. from something you created this year?

I was a lot happier with my artstuff last year but uhm... I think I like this one most because I'm still a bit proud of the background haha

What’s something you would like to create content for?

I still want to draw scenes from my favorite fanfics more often, other than that Idk I always draw the stuff I like so it's all good v.v

What’s something you’re currently obsessed with? 

Nothing in particular c:

What’s something you were excited about that turned out to be disappointing this year?

Oh hm... I can't think of anything but I have an example for a thing that was the other way around! I thought my friend's bachelorette party would be very exhausting because people from senior high were there but it wasn't as bad as I thought it would be haha.

What’s a hidden talent of yours?

I'm good at seeing my flaws or reflecting what I did bad/wrong in a situation, I'm just bad at finding ways to improve on that ahah

Are you religious?     

No, I'm Lutheran-Protestant on paper but I'm not religious at all.

What’s something you wish to have at this moment?

A whole day to just sleep! :V

I tag @council-of-beetroot @luderailing @scarlettlillies @tonitoewyn @lillystarreds @samrut and @bookworm555 if you don't want to do this it's cool as always! haha c:

#tag game #nh #long post

[apenitentialprayer]

Vitae Martini pseudoprophete: A Catholic tradition of polemical Luther biography

The most famous, and in many ways rightly infamous, detractor of Luther's character [was] the Dominican Heinrich Denifle, Sub-Archivar of the Holy See […]. For him such events as the fit in the choir have only an inner cause, which in no way means a decent conflict or even an honest affliction, but solely an abysmal depravity of character. To him, Luther is too much of a psychopath to be credited with honest mental or spiritual suffering. It is only the Bad One who speaks through Luther. It is, it must be, Denifle's primary ideological premise, that nothing, neither mere pathological fits, nor the later revelations that set Luther on the path to reformation, had anything whatsoever to do with divine interference. "Who," Denifle asks, in referencing the thunderstorm, "can prove, for himself, not to speak of others, that the alleged inspiration through the Holy Ghost came from above . . . and that it was not the play of conscious or unconscious self-delusion?" Lutheranism, he fears (and hopes to demonstrate) has tried to lift to the height of dogma the phantasies of a most fallible mind. [...] To [Denifle] he is an Umsturzmensch, the kind of man who wants to turn the world upside down without a plan of his own. To Denifle, Luther's protestant attitude introduced into history a dangerous kind of revolutionary spirit. Luther's special gifts, which the priest does not deny, are those of the demagogue and the false prophet — falseness not only as a matter of bad theology, but as a conscious falsification from base motives. All of this follows from the priest's quite natural thesis that war orders from above, such as the [Protestant apologist] assumes to have been issued to Luther, could only be genuine if they showed the seal and the signature of divinity, namely, signs and miracles. [...] Denifle is only the most extreme representative of a Catholic school of Luther biography, whose representatives try hard to divorce themselves from his method while sharing his basic assumption of a gigantic moral flaw in Luther's personality. The Jesuit [Hartmann] Grisar is cooler and more dissecting in his approach. Yet he too ascribes to Luther a tendency for "egomanic self-delusion" and suggests a connection between his self-centeredness and his medical history; thus Grisar puts himself midway between the approaches of the priest and of the psychiatrist. Among all of Luther's biographers, inimical or friendly, Denifle seems to me to resemble Luther most, at least in his salt-and-pepper honesty, and his one-sided anger. The Jesuit [sic?] is most admirable in his scholarly criticism of Luther's theology; most lovable in his outraged response to Luther's vulgarity. Denifle does not think that a true man of God would ever say "I gorge myself (fresse) like a Bohemian and I get drunk (sauff) like a German. God be praised, Amen" although he neglects the fact that Luther wrote this in one of his humorous letters to his wife at a time when she was worried about his lack of appetite.

- Erik Erikson (Young Man Luther: A Study in Psychoanalysis and History, pages 26, 31, 32). Italics original, bolded emphases added.

#Christianity #Catholicism #Lutheranism #Martin Luther #Heinrich Denifle #polemics #historiography

[what-if-nct]

hiiii is it ok if i ask for some advice? im sorry im gonna sound rambly but uhhh i'm 14 and starting high school next year (which i alrdy dont feel too good abt haha) and my (overbearing asian) parents are going to send me to this private lutheran hs instead of the public one i was supposed to go to bc its more upper class and smart (?). tbh i was genuinely surprised that i liked the school, academic-wise, and i rlly liked that i had the space in my schedule to take more fine arts classes (i dont have any in my hs) but like the first thing the principal said to me was that i "needed to learn to be a good christian". a whole hour each week is dedicated to jesus and i just know my atheist ass is going to be uncomfortable asf. first, one of my best friends has a thing for jesus (he says jesus is too hot to be straight 😭) and i cant tell if hes joking anymore, and second, i dont have a problem with people who are religious, but i do when they are flat out hateful and harrassing people from communities they "dont agree with", and i just know the people preaching at this school are the latter.

also rn i am the *only* poc in my entire school, and i noticed there were a lot more asian students and students of color, so hopefully there'll be less kids pulling at their eyes or calling me slurs :D

anyways i not a fan of the fact that "homosexual behavior on or off campus" warranted for expulsion, since i am a *very* queer and bisexual individual. at my current school, i dont really need to hide my gayness bc no one cares, and my teachers are accepting (my homeroom teachers a lesbian lol <33). i dont think i can handle having to hide such a big part of my identity at home *and* at school :( too add to that i really suck at making friends, so being somewhere without people i'm comfortable with, my anxiety gets really bad, and i just shut down completely.

my hs is p rundown (like most public highschools are) and the classes are average at best, so idk man, im torn :( i dont know if i should suck it up and go to lutheran school bc their good academics, or ✨be myself✨ and go to p shitty school :/

i dont know what to do (or if i can even do anything) abt it i just dont feel too good about this :( you've mentioned you went to a christian school, so do you have any advice? even if you dont, thank you so so much for listening to me rant for a moment there <33 i really treasure you and your blog, atp you feel like the big sister i've never had. i love youuuu <333

That is such a sticky situation. Cause maybe you can try to persuade your parents especially since they'll be paying for the private school on top of college tuition in the future, it can be a huge selling point. I know that's how I won in the decision of beauty school over college it's cheaper. And christian and catholic schools are heavily based in religion like it's a huge part of it so if you don't believe in it it can be absolutely mind numbing. I actually didn't go to Christian school, actually wasn't forced to go to church as a child, I was like 11 and for some reason told grandma Christianity is responsible for all the bad things that happened in the world. Which is wild that I even was able to come to that conclusion as a child she just brushed me off. But I did go to church summer camp to be with my friends which my friend and I got scolded for holding hands but she was just leading me through the crowd of people. So that's still unfortunately a huge part of christian beliefs

the thing that really caught me off guard is the homosexual activity off campus can lead to expulsion. On campus like sucks but is expected of a christian school sadly. But off campus in your day to day life is like your actions off campus shouldn't be judged by the school. Like I can't wrap my mind around that. I think since you have a whole summer maybe look for more schools you can attend I remember doing this in middle school because my home high school was an F school so you could choose any high school within a certain range. You'd be really surprised with how many schools are around you I'm assuming you're in the us but I'm sure everywhere has a ton of schools. And look for a school that holds some of what your parents want and also your own values and needs for your education. And maybe your parents seeing you take initiative might be an extra point.

If your parents are deadset on it. I think try to make the best out of it as much as you can usually there's a group of people in the same boat you're in where their parents forced them to be there. Trust me no matter where you go you will always be drawn to those like you every single time. But if you do get the choice of going to the original public school firstly screw every single racist little bitch who does that to you that is horrid I am so sorry you have to endure that. People suck. But you can also learn extra independently I always did that cause I was a bit ahead of my class. But I really think researching more schools in your area would help you find the perfect school for you. I personally was in love with Waldorf schools they're more creative led schools and freer, I wanted to go to one so badly. So figure out the exact kind of education you want like a magnet school, charter school it doesn't hurt to see how receptive your parents will be to it.

I really hope this helped at all and I hope it works out well for you. And Awwww it's so sweet you see me as a big sister, I gladly be your big sister, love you too🌸🌸🌸

[littlemissluxiey]

REMINDERS TO SELF

by Norman Sison Lao

1. Love God above everything and everyone else.

2. Love everyone, including those who hate you.

3. Forgive those who offend you quickly. Unforgiveness is a prison of your own making.

4. Never harbor ill feelings or hold a grudge against anyone. Your heart is not a repository for trash.

5. Be grateful always. There is always something to thank God for even in unfavorable circumstances.

6. Call sin a "sin" no matter how small it is and hate it with all your mind, soul, heart and strength.

7. Be honest in all things regardless of whether it is small or great.

8. Character and Integrity are more important than silver and gold.

9. Money is a servant, do not make it your master.

10. Looks fade, character does not. Focus on improving your heart, not your face.

11. Be an inspiration to others always. You'll never know who you will influence to become a better person or be the reason for unlocking their potentials for God and Man.

12. Fight for the Truth even if it means losing friends, status or positions. The Truth will last forever, everything else is temporary.

13. Be guided by the Eternal Word of God and not by the Flimsy and Shifting Opinions of Man.

14. The Glory of God and the expansion of His Kingdom is more important than your life or your personal ambitions and plans for your life.

15. Do not listen to gossip (garbage). You are not a trash can.

16. Always speak the Truth even if doing so may put you at a disadvantage. We do not speak the Truth out of convenience, but out of commitment.

17. Your character is more important than your comfort. Choose character.

18. In essentials, Unity. In non-essentials, Liberty. In everything else, Charity. ~Rupertus Meldenius, a 17th Century Lutheran Theologian.

19. Jesus Christ has only One Body. Do everything you can to unite Christians under Christ.

20. Celebrate the victory of other Christians; you belong to the same team.

21. Never envy others. We can only do what God allows. Praise His Name when others accomplish more than you.

22. You are a unique person in Christ and not a clone of someone else. Be original; be yourself.

23. Focus on the good side of life. This will help you do something about the bad side of life.

24. Improve yourself at every opportunity.

25. Do not shun difficulties because they are God's tools to build a better you.

26. Never allow a debt to remain outstanding.

27. Live such a kind of life that when false witnesses make up stories about you, people will not believe them.

28. Keep your word. Period.

29. Be a man with a sense of humor, but never be a comedian. You were called by God to be a preacher of His Word, not an entertainer of the World.

30. When you are hurt by others, forgive. When you hurt others, ask for forgiveness.

31. Pride is the way to failure. Do not pass the way of pride.

32. Do not aim for titles and positions. Aim for excellence.

33. When you do something great for God, make sure you bring Him all the glory and never keep some for yourself. Quickly move on from a point of success and never stay there even for a second. Protect your heart from becoming proud. Remember, you can do nothing apart from the Lord.

34. Fear is good, but only when you fear the right things. Do not be afraid of doing the right thing, but be afraid to offend God. Never be afraid of standing up for the Truth, but be afraid of shrinking from your responsibility in upholding the Truth.

35. You only have one life to live, make it count for Jesus Christ and His Kingdom.

36. Always be gentle when dealing with someone who has fallen because you can also fall, too.

37. Your competition is with the Devil, not with other Believers of Christ.

38. You will be disappointed with other Christians and Pastors, that's why you should fix your eyes on Jesus, the Author and Finisher of your faith.

39. Never give up on someone just because they failed. God is not finished with them yet.

40. Keep all the flattering comments you receive in your pocket with large holes.

41. Laugh with those who laugh and cry with those who cry.

42. Listen to others and learn. You do not learn when you listen to yourself.

43. When you listen to those who agree with you, you learn nothing new. You learn new things when you listen to those who disagree with you.

44. Treat people like Jesus Christ died for them because Jesus Christ died for them!

45. Above all things, Guard your Heart.

46. Protect your time of rest. God gave Man the Sabbath for his good. There is a time to say "Yes," but there are also times you should say "No." A rested servant of God is a better servant of God.

47. Always set aside time for introspection. Sit in a quiet place, on top of a mountain or beside the ocean and just think. This exercise will make you a deeper man.

48. Do something you've never done before.

49. Always check the motive of your heart. Sometimes, people start out with the right motive, but later on their motives changed and corrupt them. Never start with Jesus and end up with Money.

50. Nothing worth getting is easy.

51. It doesn't rain forever.

52. Do not complain that things aren't done right. Make yourself available so that thing can be done right.

53. Never argue with a fool. That is an argument you can never win.

54. Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

55. Challenge everything. Many things that have been held to be true in the past have been found to be false or inadequate in the present.

56. Never speak ill of anyone.

57. Keep your heart free from anger, bitterness, hatred and vengeance.

58. Live only for the glory of God and the salvation of mankind.

07.14.23

Credits to Pastor Norms

[popmusicu]

The impact of Protestant Reformation on music

The Protestant Reformation was a major movement from the sixteenth century that confronted the Catholic Church to various church reformers, who regarded that the former incurred in a diverse set of theological and political errors, in addition to abuses and corruption. In this sense, although music apparently wasn't the main issue concerning the reformers, each one of them had their particular views on it, and when the church split into different denominations, each one was influenced by their respective reformer's take, and thus, even without considering this subject too much, the Protestant Reformation had a profound impact on the musical world in various ways: it changed the way music was used in the reformer's respective countries; how music was used in the church; and it influenced very deeply in classical musicians like Bach.

Delving into these thinkers, we have to name first Martin Luther, german theologian and ex catholic priest, who out of all reformers, had the most appreciation for music. One of the most important changes promoted by Luther that changed profoundly worldwide music was the inclusion of arranged secular music into the church service, which gave a huge creative freedom to musicians of the lutheran community. This fact contrasted deeply from the pre-Reformation catholic way of worship, that consisted mainly of plain gregorian chants and responsive songs in praise of God and in honor of the Virgin Mary. Consequently, the borders of the allowed music in the old catholic services were very clear.

In the complete opposite side, swiss reformer Zwingli considered that music shouldn't have a place on liturgy, because it was distracting to prayer, that has to be completely individual, while the french Calvin was in between of them, considering that the only valid music to use in the services were the psalms, because he thought that music could sway a person for good or bad, and in order to draw people closer to God, the best music to play was the music that God himself had given us.

Additionaly, it's important to note the relevance that Luther gave to music for educational purposes. He viewed music as a way to reach the lowers classes and the illiterates, since the melody helped people's remembering abilities, and thus this approach also deeply affected on culture.

In conclusion, I think it's very easy to realize which people and approaches had the most impact on culture, and how we can still see their effects regarding pop music.

Bautista Zúñiga Canitano

[trenenlasnubes]

Ansvar og Tilsyn ~ Verantwortung und Aufsicht ~ Responsipility and Oversight

During the last 30 years (and more) a discussion has been going on as to who has the responsibility in the church and does that mean, that each and everyone should have the power of supervision? Or, as the discussion started: Why should priests be so “mighty”? Nowadays some of my colleagues however, also ask why should everybody, but for the priests, be so mighty? And what about responsibility and oversight? Here are some observations:

In Den Norske Kirke – since it was (from the Reformation on) established as a state church – the “power” came from the King, thru the bishop to the local priest. Following the Apostolic succession in a new and protestant way. In the last 100 years a process of modernizing power structures – parallel to the political discussion – has been going on. As we have seen, this process was intensified in the 80-ies. We also see that this process is still ongoing and the same questions of how to give things the right twist keep being juggled.

The Evangelische Kirche in Hessen und Nassau (EKHN) – having been construed 1947 (out of 3 existing regional churches) – aimed for democratic structures right from the beginning. This was a given – seen the specific mingling of state and church in nazi times, a decisive process of unraveling was more then necessary. *

To understand the tug of war between democratization and the need to organize responsibility and supervision in the church however, a closer look at the beginnings of Reformation in different countries (under different conditions) might be useful.

In Scandinavian countries, with arrival of the reformation, the church mainly adapted to henceforth be Lutheran. Unlike other European countries, Scandinavia did not experience a strong or violent Counter-Reformation. Hence the colorful liturgical performance of Den Norske Kirke might sometimes be perceived as rather roman-catholic – considering other protestant traditions. A closer look then shows that the use of alb, stole and chasuble is not necessarily synonymous with being roman catholic.

In Germany the local Kings decided what confession would rule in their area. Hence, we still find mainly protestant and mainly catholic villages. Also, here the choice was not made by the people – in average people often don’t know much about their own confession. And as a result, some people leave the protestant church, because of something the pope said (e.g.).

Flanders e.g., ** – being under the reign of Willem van Oranje, Stadholder under Charlemagne in the Netherlands (at that time including Flanders), initially became (almost entirely) protestant in quite short order. Economy however was a large factor in terms of what confession might be more opportune. Wilhelm van Oranje was no exception since he switched confession according to the confession of (in total 4) wealthy brides. The flourishing post-medieval (especially textile) industry in Flanders AND the fact that people were eager to learn reading (to be able to read in the bible for themselves), also enabled them to read and judge their working contract or any other official document, enraged catholic governed countries such as France and Spain as well as wealthy landowners in Flanders. Hence the Inquisition came to Flanders, to take care of this problem and eradicate the “bad habit” of Lutheranism – the latter being code for reading in the bible (which was prohibited by law). Many Protestants then lost their lives, (so to say) to give the ladies at the Versailles palace better access to “appropriate clothing”. The remaining protestant families, and those who converted later, acknowledge this heritage with pride and awe.

This brief (and rough) comparison may illustrate the different ways (and reasons) in which people desire for democratization and likewise shows which trains of thought can entail political or ecclesiastical decisions.

I find it very interesting, that in Den Norske Kirke, after more then 100 years the remaining question about the power balance in the church is around the power of the bishop. This is not a big question in the EKHN and certainly not in the VPKB (Verenigde Protestantse Kerk in Belgïe). In the VPKB Except for Priests and the President of the Synod Board, all positions are voluntary positions. While the EKHN decided not to have bishops but a church president and different “Pröpste” overseeing a geographic area with different deaneries and having supervision over the priests. Around 1999 a reform of the deanery structure evolved, aiming at strengthening the middle structure of the church and hoping to even “flatten” the hierarchy. The function of a dean then changed from primus inter pares to superior of the priests. Deans were now subordinate to the church president. Provosts remained part of the joint bishop function (Das Leitende Geistliche Amt).  In praxis this meant that the soul care line of priests switched from de Dean to the Propst (or Pröpstin).

Another structural change in 2010 then resulted in the fact that the Propst (or Pröpstin) now has supervision over the deans and the joint bishop function now became part of the judicatory. In praxis this meant, that priests now have lost their soul care line. *** As a matter of fact, these changes in the EKHN – unlike the original intentions – turned out to be a strongly felt hierarchization. Also, the building of neighborhoods (several local parishes having to work together – by synodal resolution) are in fact (in many parishes) being perceived as strong interference from above****. Even though parish councils were invited to comment on the resolution proposal of the deanery synod board, the anxiety level remains high, and parishes might eventually resolve in basic resignation, while peaks of anxiety might keep popping up. This being related to a general existence fear (in human beings) whenever changes are ahead, it is generally not easy, for councils to return to working mode.

Whereas it is impossible to lower this general existence fear, there is another kind of fear that usually pops up, when survival anxiety rises high: the fear of not being able (anymore) to learn new things, to be able to cope with changes ahead. Experience from Change Management and Transition Ministry has shown that it is very well possible to work with boards and individuals, to lower this specific fear. Interestingly, after this fear has lowered to a manageable level, the general existence fear seems to lower as well! From my work as a congregational consultant and trained Transition Specialist I learned that these fears are as unavoidable as they are unignorable. We may eventually be able to avoid these fears if we don’t make changes. But then, judicatories don’t usually envision changes just for the fun of changing! Hence dealing with the fears is part of the work ahead.

So, if we want employees and volunteers in the local parishes to deal with changes in a responsible way, we need to acknowledge these fears and treat them (the people and their fears) lovingly. To treat lovingly, judicatories need to be open for conversation – especially about supposedly irrelevant matters. Hence there is a need for consultation on all levels of the church. Local churches need to adapt, and judicatories (on all levels of the church) need to comply to an adapted situation as well! And this is by no means a side issue – on the contrary it is a genuine leadership responsibility, to ensure this emotional process as part of the change process.

An African story ***** may illustrate this: A (missionary or explorer) expedition once made its way thru Africa. After several days of traveling, the carriers refused to get back en route. “What is wrong? Do they need more money?”, the Leader of the expedition asked. So, the translators were sent out, to find the reason for this refusal to go further. When the translators came back, they said: “No, the people do not want more money! They say, they now must wait for their hearts to follow up.”

Change is not exactly natural for human beings and seldom comes over night. Change certainly does not happen per Ordre de Mufti! Change however can work out well, as an adaptive process. Process oriented change allows the people involved, to take on their responsibility. And then develop the necessary energy and phantasy for the tasks ahead.

Leadership then is enabling people to take on their responsibility. Oversight (as part of leadership) also means to provide opportunities, time and means for change to happen in a responsible and “doable” way.

Priesthood of all believers then means to cherish the responsibility of all (believers, members, listeners, bystanders, and leaders). In the Church as an organization all have responsibility (in a protestant understanding) and some are chosen from the midst of all responsible and are entrusted with leadership and oversight. ******

*) See earlier Article on “Congregational or episcopal Character of the Church” in this Blog.

**) As a Flemish protestant, I consider this third and quite different historical perspective fruitful as to how the church of Jesus Christ has formed in different geographical areas, under different conditions.

***) An initial motion to allow the church president to use the title of bishop, was at the same time denied by the Synod.

****) Sovereignty of the parish being one of the protestant basic strongholds.

*****) From oral tradition; story telling is a traditional way of passing on wisdom. This story is from African wisdom.

******) cfr. The Choosing of the Seven (Acts 6,1-7) and Seventy Elders anointed (Numbers 11,16-24)

#Ansvar og Tilsyn #Verantwortung und Aufsicht #Responsibility and Oversight

[seekfirst-community]

The following reflection is courtesy of Don Schwager © 2022. Don's website is located at Dailyscripture.net

Meditation: What can a royal wedding party tell us about God's kingdom? One of the most beautiful images used in the Scriptures to depict what heaven is like is the wedding celebration and royal feast given by the King for his newly-wed son and bride. Whatever grand feast we can imagine on earth, heaven is the feast of all feasts because the Lord of heaven and earth invites us to the most important banquet of all - not simply as bystanders or guests - but as members of Christ's own body, his bride the church! The last book in the Bible ends with an invitation to the wedding feast of the Lamb - the Lord Jesus who offered his life as an atoning sacrifice for our sins and who now reigns as King of Kings and Lord of Lords. The Spirit and the Bride say, Come! (Revelations 22:17). The Lord Jesus invites us to be united with himself in his heavenly kingdom of peace and righteousness.

Whose interests come first - God or mine?

Why does Jesus' parable of the marriage feast seem to focus on an angry king who ends up punishing those who refused his invitation and who mistreated his servants? Jesus' parable contains two stories. The first has to do with the original guests invited to the marriage feast. The king had sent out invitations well in advance to his subjects, so they would have plenty of time to prepare for coming to the feast. How insulting for the invited guests to then refuse when the time for celebrating came! They made light of the King's request because they put their own interests above his. They not only insulted the King but the heir to the throne as well. The king's anger is justified because they openly refused to give the king the honor he was due. Jesus directed this warning to the Jews of his day, both to convey how much God wanted them to share in the joy of his kingdom, but also to give a warning about the consequences of refusing his Son, their Messiah and Savior.

An invitation we cannot refuse!

The second part of the story focuses on those who had no claim on the king and who would never have considered getting such an invitation. The "good and the bad" along the highways certainly referred to the Gentiles (non-Jews) and to sinners. This is certainly an invitation of grace - undeserved, unmerited favor and kindness! But this invitation also contains a warning for those who refuse it or who approach the wedding feast unworthily. God's grace is a free gift, but it is also an awesome responsibility.

Cheap grace or costly grace?

Dieterich Bonhoeffer, a Lutheran pastor and theologian in Germany who died for his faith under Hitler's Nazi rule, contrasted "cheap grace" and "costly grace".

"Cheap grace is the grace we bestow on ourselves... the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance... grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate... Costly grace is the gospel which must be sought again and again, the gift which must be asked for, the door at which a man must knock. Such grace is costly because it calls us to follow Jesus Christ. It is costly because it costs a man his life, and it is grace because it gives a man the only true life."

God invites each of us as his friends to his heavenly banquet that we may celebrate with him and share in his joy. Are you ready to feast at the Lord's banquet table?

"Lord Jesus, may I always know the joy of living in your presence and grow in the hope of seeing you face to face in your everlasting kingdom."

The following reflection is from One Bread, One Body courtesy of Presentation Ministries © 2022.

come to god’s love feast

“The reign of God may be likened to a king who gave a wedding banquet for his son.” —Matthew 22:2

The kingdom of heaven is a love feast. This morning, I went to the ultimate wedding feast, the Holy Mass. Then I went to breakfast with my son and his fiancée. To dine with an engaged couple who are newly in love was a reminder of the heavenly wedding feast. My morning was a microcosm of the kingdom of God: being surrounded by love and joy forever.

Throughout the Old and New Testaments, the most common comparison of the relationship of God and His people is a wedding (Hos 2:21ff; Mt 22:2; Rv 21:2). Jesus’ first sign of His glory took place at a wedding (Jn 2:5-11).  In the Old Testament, we often hear “You shall be My people, and I will be your God” (see e.g. Ez 36:28). The marriage covenant between husband and wife is a reflection of the covenant between God and His people. God waits for us as a groom waits for his bride. Mysteriously, it’s as if our love was necessary for God’s happiness. There is plentiful suffering in this worldly valley of tears. How good it is to have tangible reminders of the fresh, all-consuming love of God (Heb 12:29). Love is the greatest gift of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 13:13). May the love of God sweep us off our feet and into the center of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, Who is Love (1 Jn 4:8, 16).

The future is an eternal wedding feast of the Lamb of God. Will we be prepared or will we be found not suitably dressed in a garment of righteousness? (Mt 22:11ff) Devote yourself to the wedding feast of God on earth, the Mass, the meeting of heaven and earth. Go to Mass as often as possible, even daily.

Prayer:  Father, may I fall in love with You all over again. Let my life reflect Your love to many thousands of people.

Promise:  “I will give you a new heart and place a new spirit within you.” —Ez 36:26

Praise:  Dr. Jones stays faithful to Church teaching by refusing to prescribe birth control pills.

Reference:  (This teaching was submitted by a member of our editorial team.)

Rescript:  "In accord with the Code of Canon Law, I hereby grant the Nihil Obstat for the publication One Bread, One Body covering the time period from August 1, 2022 through September 30, 2022. Reverend Steve J. Angi, Chancellor, Vicar General, Archdiocese of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio January 31, 2022"

The Nihil Obstat ("Permission to Publish") is a declaration that a book or pamphlet is considered to be free of doctrinal or moral error. It is not implied that those who have granted the Nihil Obstat agree with the contents, opinions, or statements

[violetsystems]

Facebook reminded me the other day of a weird racist interaction I had with an ex friend’s dad at a gallery show. So bad that it was a screenshot from someone else talking about what happened during the convo. I was introduced to this guy’s dad and he says “Olson huh! You’re Swedish.” If it were spelled Olsen it’d be a different story. Before I could say anything he starts telling me how Sweden was neutral during World War II and hurt the Jewish people. The father was Jewish and his mother was Danish. I wanted to tell him that side of the family was indeed Swedish but my mother’s family were poor gypsies excommunicated by the Catholic Church in Croatia. They wouldn’t even bury a family member because of some static with the church. Something about not being baptized. Thankfully I’m circumcised. My grandfather had to raise his immediate family on his own and dropped out of school in sixth grade. Only to become an electrician and speak five or six languages when all was said and done after serving as a mechanic for the United States Army. The other Swedish side came to America making shoes. Their son became a Lutheran minister in San Francisco who later moved to Chicago to become minister in a mostly black congregation. I didn’t get to communicate any of that. He interrupted my response to talk about my raiders jacket at the time. Which the tweet screenshot mentions. He goes on to ask “so you like football too huh?” I told him I was just a really big fan of nwa.

[sturaq]

Gathered by profit, scattered by fear, ruthless and ruthless for whom to fight If you follow Seven and learn well, you will only end up in prison

"I don't know if it's because Guo has been under investigation for more than a year, and the punishment of freezing his assets in the PAX case, but Guo Wengui is often furious in the recent live broadcast, which has become another important part of his bragging and farting. The newcomers to the Lutheran SARA scene, such as Changdao, Lao Ban Chang and Da Niu, have all become the targets of Guo Wengui's "explosions". However, it is not news that the crooks under Guo Wengui are stupid and bad, and it is not news that Guo Wengui used them to make money by fraud and shirked his responsibilities. The little ants and all of you should know that since Guo Wengui started his fraud, the "leaders" in the Ant Gang have been one generation after another, but in the end they either ran away or turned into pseudo-classes. There are many reasons for this, but in the end they can all be categorised into two main categories: emotions and money. In terms of emotion, many people initially believe that Guo Wengui is the "son of destiny", but after a period of following him, they realise that the "exposé" is in fact bullshit, attracting attention and gaining popularity through one hot topic after another, only to have Guo Wengui expose them afterwards. The information, accusing them of being CCP pseudo-classes, was swept away through verbal violence. In terms of money, after the establishment of the Rule of Law Fund in 2018, the creation of G-Series and XiFarm in 2020, and XiCoin and H-pay in 2022, the series of "goodies" that followed Wengui's transformation of eyeballs into a channel for attracting money also became a source of motivation for the Ant Gang to climb up the ladder in an aggressive manner.

[buggie-hagen]

Sermon for the Holy Trinity (6/4/23)

Primary Text | Matthew 28:16-20

-------------------------------------------

Dear People of God,

          Sometimes our view of God is filtered by our experience of our parents. Sometimes that can be helpful, they are put there for our great benefit. That is the intention. To benefit us with our parents. To feed us, to put a roof over our heads, to protect us from danger. And other things, to love, to care for, to bring us up in the right way.

However, many times our parents can be super unhelpful. For a large segment of the population our parents can be the root of our many troubles now--even if we haven't lived with them for years. As children we are impacted by their childishness. Their selfishness. Their rejection. Their unfair expectations. Their neglect. Their harm to us--physical, emotional, and otherwise.

This then, can be (but not always), translated into our view of God. Then when we reject our parents we are at the same time rejecting our God. When we reject our God we are at the same time rejecting our parents.

How I wish this wasn't so.

As much as we are called to "honor" our parents as the Fourth Commandment commands, no matter how strange they are, how poor there are, no matter how askew they are....yet, for children to survive, there are times when we legitimately may put space between and have boundaries. For being someone's parent is not actually a right, it is a privilege. It is a gift given from God. We may not do whatever we wish with his gifts—for they are not ours. We are to be good stewards. Not always so harsh and unyielding.

Most of all, children need room for grace. Room to grow. Room to figure out who they are. Yes a parent has authority and may use it to curb their children from harming themself or harming others. But the most important thing a parent is to do is not actually behavior control. It is to teach their children God's grace in Jesus Christ. God’s undeserved kindness, mercy, compassion, forgiveness, and hope. And so, a parent cheerfully and willingly and freely displays this to their children. Often. Without strings attached.

They are to teach their children God's character--to forgive, to not keep a tally of wrongs, to lift out of the mud. To show people God’s warm, gentle heart made known in Christ. Not to bind people, but to unbind them. There is a difference between God and our parents, dear people. Whatever a parent does, good or bad—tends to be passed on to their children—so that the parents’ character passes on, faults and all. The good news is where we fail in our duties as parents and our duties as children, God does not fail. He is the Faithful One. In Christ, there is no law. Christ is our source of healing. In him there is only mercy. It is this mercy of Christ alone that enables us to truly be free, to look beyond our present predicament, and to live life as the gift it is. Every breath we have is a gift. In Christ, we become a flower that blooms with beauty beyond measure.

This we have now by faith.

          Today is Sunday of the Holy Trinity. It is no mistake that God reveals himself as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. One God in three persons. It is his self-revelation. He has done this so we may know who God is and how he self-identifies. As Lutherans, we always understand the Trinity in light of Christ. All three persons of the Holy Trinity point to Christ as the Book of Life. And here we have Christ say, “All authority in heaven and earth has been given to me. Go therefore…” (Matt. 28:18-19a). Whatever we do as Christians, we do under the authority of Christ. He is the one who authorizes us to speak and act in God’s name, to baptize, and to teach, and to make disciples of all nations. That means the word is to be spoken to all people. God’s word is to go out to every single person without exception. How silly of God to entrust us faulty humans with such a great responsibility. And yet, here we are. God’s foolishness is greater than all human wisdom. It is one of the most offensive things of our Christian faith that God puts his authority to speak on his behalf in the mouth of ordinary human beings. God speaks through sinners. It is God’s great pleasure to work by the mouths of his favorite creation—you and I. We do not speak of things unsure, but of things certain. Because we have a God who does not lie or deceive. In the Trinity we have a God who is completely worthy of our trust.

          Now we speak of baptism. For Jesus says, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” In the sacrament of holy baptism all three persons of the Trinity are present. The Father speaks the Word. The Word spoken clothes the baptized in the Christ. The Spirit joins the baptized to Jesus’ death and resurrection, and thereby forgives all our sins. Baptism is a lifejacket. It keeps us afloat in the storm of life. Whether we are thrown in a pit of despair or in prison or in a hospital bed—we always have baptism there with us. It is the crown jewel of all our life. It is God’s guarantee that he will preserve us and keep us in Christ to eternal life. Baptism is of more value than the approval of our peers, of more value than all the money in the world—it is what gives us what value we have—for baptism gives you Christ himself. It is the sacrament that keeps us going and we can return to again and again even as we fall and stumble again and again. When all other lights go out, baptism still shines. Baptism is not done by human authority; it is done by Christ’s authority. So it is God who does baptism to us.

What he has started in your baptism he will certainly complete. In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit you belong to Christ. This cannot be undone. Amen.

[queerprayers]

how are we supposed to deal with how antisemitism is kind of… everywhere in Christianity?

Thank you for being patient as I figure out where to even start with answering this! I'm a Lutheran. This is a really hard question, and something that I have to deal with. What our ancestors did is not our fault, but it is our responsibility.

My first answer is that I don't know. I don't know what to do when so many people I call my siblings are full of hate. I often feel helpless. But I promise I'm not stopping there.

My second answer is we have three options that I can see: (1) ignore the issue and let antisemitism fester, (2) abandon Christianity as outdated, offensive, or irredeemable, or (3) put in the work to transform ourselves and our institutions. The first two are easier, and the second especially can be tempting. But I hope to devote my life to the third, and that's the perspective I'll be coming from today.

I do want to make clear that I am (clearly) not Jewish and also don't consider myself particularly knowledgeable about Judaism. I read a lot and interact with Jewish people online, but I don't feel this qualifies me to answer this question in any mind-blowing or unique way. I will, however, share my own advice and opinions, and you can decide how much you want to value them.

This is from a Christian perspective, for other Christians (and culturally Christian-ish people). And as always, I'm a white American Gentile. I welcome other perspectives/criticism.

Here are some things that you (my followers) can actually do and learn to acknowledge and combat antisemitism in Christianity. None of this is a solution, but I hope it's something. I'll include some resources at the end. (All of it is easier said than done. But saying it is the first step.)

Acknowledge and learn about the problem. I assume most of you reading this will have realized that our religion, structurally/historically, has condoned massive amounts of sh*t. Any exploration into Christian history has to confront this. Practically every oppressed group in America knows this intimately. In terms of antisemitism, please understand right now that the problem is more of an issue than you thought. However bad you think it is, it's worse. Please immediately burn into your brain that antisemitism is, as the asker said, everywhere in Christianity. Just like white people have internalized racism, even if they're not being purposely racist, Gentiles have internalized antisemitism, even if you don't realize it. Look for it, inside yourself and around you. Call it out. Learn the dogwhistles.

Actually learn about Judaism. If you didn't convert from Judaism/come from a Jewish family, probably just go in assuming you know nothing. Forget what Christian leaders/experts have said, and probably forget what you learned in high school. Build your knowledge of modern Judaism from scratch—this will help you not hold onto myths/prejudices you probably carry. PLEASE remember that first-century Judaism is completely different from modern Judaism. No matter how much you study the Bible, you will not know modern Judaism. Please follow/listen to modern Jewish people.

Your God is Jewish; your religion is not. This is a precarious position. Christianity is an offshoot or appropriation of Judaism, depending who you ask. There is no easy box to put this situation in. Examine that tension; have discussions about it. There is no solution I or anyone else has found so far in history. There are only questions, and trying our best, and approaching with love. PLEASE don't use Jesus being Jewish as "proof" you're not antisemitic.

Stop identifying with Judaism/assuming you know anything about it/assuming Christian interpretation is the same/saying "Judeo-Christian." Obviously if you are interested in converting to, or have converted from Judaism, or are culturally Jewish, that's a different story. But generally, if you are a Christian, you are not Jewish. Research and discussion is welcome. Relating to/agreeing with/valuing interpretation is also welcome. But identification/assumption of authority is not.

Judaism is not "Christianity without Jesus." It never was. It's a completely different philosophy/theology on its own. Stop acting like Jewish people are missing something. Judaism is not outdated or there as a message for Christians, and Jewish people are not waiting around to be converted. They have found God. If you have a problem with that, you apparently haven't.

The Hebrew Bible is a collection of Jewish writings that exists as a text, as one part. And in Jewish interpretation, it is not the complement to the New Testament—stop assuming it is. I personally don't call it the Old Testament anymore—Jewish people did not painstakingly save and translate their holy manuscripts for centuries just for us to rename them. It's the Hebrew Bible or the Tanakh, and the first five books are the Torah. The books of the Hebrew Bible are not ours, but we believe they are the truth. Everyone is free to have their own interpretation of them, but Jewish people have authority, because it is their story to tell. Read Jewish interpretations/translations of their texts. Especially if you grew up Christian/have only interacted with the Bible from a Christian perspective—it will change everything.

Recognize the places in the New Testament and its translations that generalize the Jewish people and put those verses in historical context and/or call them out. No, "the Jews" did not kill Jesus. This is a dangerous way to translate the text and has led to violence. The Gospels tell the story of a Jewish man who made himself a lot of enemies, mostly within his own community. The story is of a specific time period and from a specific perspective. The ways the narrative has been twisted and misunderstood is part of the Christian legacy and must be admitted to, discussed, and repented of.

Stop celebrating Jewish holidays. Yes, Jesus celebrated Passover. No, that doesn't mean you can. Unless you are invited to a Jewish household/community to celebrate with them, you have no business holding seders, etc. if you're not Jewish.

Stop calling yourself a Messianic Jew. You're just a Christian. If you think Jesus is the Messiah, you are a Christian. (Obviously you could still be culturally/ethnically Jewish, because Judaism is not just a religion. I'm not here to tell Jewish people what to do. I'm here to stop Christians from "getting in touch with the Jewish origins of their faith" or whatever and then just appropriating Jewish festivals.)

Hold on to the beautiful, loving parts of our religion. It is so easy to give up, to throw it all away. And I have nothing but respect for those who have done that. I understand completely. It's easier to distance yourself from an institution that has done harm than to try to fix it. It's even better in some cases. But I'm here because I have a deep, kind of unexplainable faith in Jesus, and no matter how many people take God's name in vain, for themselves or their class/privilege, I will not abandon the faith that taught me to love. If you similarly are holding on to Christianity, pay attention to what you're holding on to. What pieces should we let go? What do we crush under our feet and what do we lift up? It's so easy to let this journey lead you to negativity and resignation. Imperfect people in an imperfect religion, oppressed turned oppressors. We betray our creed at the drop of a hat. But that is not the end of the story. That's the point of the gospels! The darkness is not the end, the tomb is not the end, the abandonment and betrayal and hopelessness is not the end. The story ends with love and with reunification. Hold on to that, more than any institution.

Repent. Christians are descendants of an awful evil: the sin of abandoning God's people, persecuting and murdering them, disrespecting their beliefs and texts. Yes, ask God for forgiveness and pray for peace, but also show your repentance in the world, to and for Jewish people. (See next paragraph.)

Actually support Jewish people. Donate. Listen. Protest. No matter how much you theoretically support Jewish people, no one can tell unless you do something about it. Faith without works is dead, my beloveds.

Okay, this is what I have in my brain right now and it's 3 a.m. so, asker: thank you for asking, I absolutely did not do the issue justice (but then, has anyone?), and I hope I have given you at least a part of the answer you were looking for. Here are some resources:

Articles/Posts:

Please at least read the Wikipedia page on this issue.

So You Want to Fight Against Antisemitism (cw: swearing)

"What's the difference between Christianity and Judaism?"

Some perspectives on Messianic Judaism: He's not a rabbi, and it's not Judaism, Jewish groups slam "disappointing" decision to have Messianic Jewish leader at Pence rally, Jewish leaders call Messianic Judaism a fraud

Who are “the Jews” in John?

Holy Week and the hatred of the Jews

Judaism and Christianity Both Rely on the Hebrew Bible. Why Do They Interpret It So Differently?

Christian Persecution of Jews over the Centuries

Websites/Publications

Jewish-Christian Relations.net

Christian-Jewish Relations Library @ Boston College

Dialogika—CCJR Resource Library

Judaism 101

My Jewish Learning

The Torah.com

Sefaria—Jewish text library

Books/Authors

Antisemitism in the New Testament / Lillian C. Freudmann

Jesus Wasn’t Killed by the Jews: Reflections for Christians in Lent / ed. Jon M. Sweeney

Christians & Jews—Faith to Faith: Tragic History, Promising Present, Fragile Future / James Rudin

Essential Judaism: A Complete Guide to Beliefs, Customs and Rituals / George Robinson

The Jewish Study Bible: Jewish Publication Society Tanakh Translation

Rabbi Danya Ruttenberg (her Twitter is a gift!!)

Amy-Jill Levine

Lois Tverberg

Brant Pitre

Robert Alter

Richard Elliott Friedman

With the help of God: may we be forgiven, may we take responsibility, may we not abandon our faith, may we have the energy and capacity to care. Let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream. Let Jesus, a Jewish Palestinian murdered by the state, guide our words and actions.

<3 Johanna

#asks #judaism

[mobiused]

this might be stupid and I might've overlooked it on the loonaverse wiki but what is olivia's suspected unmuted, original color? I read her color may have once been bright before she fell.

Olivia's color is anything monochromatic (and by that I mean both black, white, all greys, and silver, because it's a little confusing otherwise). Hyeju once said Olivia's colors are 은별 & 검정, which are silver and black, though we've seen in teasers that she's had white too. Erm nevermind it's just a really light grey. Either way I'm not sure how much I trust Word of St Paul with this because the girls have been wrong about their lore before LOL

You're talking about this page right?

"As theorized by many, Olivia Hye is a fallen angel, meaning her color was once bright and colorful, but somehow became tainted and was outcasted, similar to Lucifer, a fallen angel in the new testament"

This is kind of making me laugh a lot because Lucifer (in his angel form) is literally never mentioned in the new testament, so already off to a rocky start. Yes, both Lucifer and Olivia fall from a non-earth plane, but I don't think that necessarily means Olivia is Lucifer. Another Biblical character who had a (less literal?) fall is Adam, a topic in Christianity known as the Fall of Man.

I don't think I understand where the bright/colorful -> tainted (and implied to be muted since she's monochromatic) comes from? Is it like, morning star -> heavenly accuser (which is what satan is usually said to mean in hebrew)? As in the morning star went 'out' or something? But the character of Lucifer isn't always considered to be the same as the character of Satan. I think Luke 10:18 is the only thing that (strenuously) links Satan and Lucifer, and a lot of Christians believe them to be two different characters, such as Lutheranism or Calvinists. Or what if we are deadnaming the Devil by calling him Lucifer... :(

Erm this is getting long one sec, below the cut is discussion on what Olivia's color means to me but ig is a little off topic

If you think about Olivia's role in the narrative compared to Lucifer, the comparison kind of confuses me. Lucifer's cardinal sin is Pride, that's what gets him cast out from Heaven/Eden (depending on who you ask). Olivia in Eden is not shown to be particularly prideful at all - in fact, she's the most meek and obedient member there, which is why Yves abandons her. Her cardinal sin is "anger" (which is meant to be understood as Wrath; the KR sub is 분노 which is what Namuwiki lists to be the sin of Wrath in Korean but is autotranslated to english as anger... sigh)

I personally interpreted Olivia's monochromatic color to mean more that she has the volition to be "good" (white) and "evil" (black) and, of course, everywhere in between. This is immediately evocative of the theme of East of Eden, that by having the free will to choose good, it gives it meaning. The character of Cal gets empowered once he internalises that "Thou mayest rule over sin" - the choice to be good, the choice to resist temptation, is always his.

I think this is a pivotal part of Olivia's character too. After finally gaining her free will after "falling" from Eden (there is obviously visual imagery for this "fall") where she was unwaveringly obedient until her escape, the first thing she does in a response to her processing her trauma is to burn everything that reminds her of, or symbolises, Yves. I always interpreted her arson to be a therapeutic way for her to assert her own free will, especially since she was coming from a place where she couldn't express her anger, towards Yves, the teacher/institution, or otherwise. Both the fire itself and the items she's burning are each symbols respectively.

The timeline is not linear in the story, but we see her swing from (perceived - who are we to judge) good and evil, from where she sets fire to the moon(?) in So What (arguably good but looks bad), to where she jumps down to meet Yves with a big smile on her face in Hi High. This may or may not be something that took her a while to learn, or alternatively something she struggles with, or relapses on, depending on how you organise the timeline, especially since it's noneuclidean as well as nonlinear.

If you think about the fall, and how the closest to white she's been was pre-debut era, it makes me wonder whether she'll ever get all the way to pure white - and what would that mean. The notion of biblical good doesn't necessarily align with what LOONA thinks is good - the lyrics of Why Not are about how they're "bad" girls for going against tradition, but they trust that in their hearts they know what is good for them. And then I also wonder if the new A&R staff even remember what the symbolic colors are meant to mean, and whether we'd actually ever see these threads picked back up... lol.

Silver always makes me think of silver bullets to kill a werewolf, and we saw a little bit of Olivia wolf shenanigans in PTT kinda. Silver is also used as a metaphor for the process of purification (Psalms 12:6, Psalms 66:10), and of course it is reflective - what does that say about Olivia's character? Are people using her as a mirror, "recognition of the self through the other" style? When she's with someone, will she imitate whatever they do too? When she has nobody to mirror, who is she then?

That being said, nothing in the loonaverse is a 1:1 allegory. While the pre-so what lore made references nearly nonstop, the narrative still remained unique and never lifted plotlines from other media, was only inspired and influenced by them. So maybe idk lol

#my personal opinion is that yves is obviously eve and the other 3 are all various facets of adam #and jinsoul can be lucifer if she wants i guess. cuz the canto 'fallen angels'... which doubles as a wong karwai reference #long post #loonaverse #loona lore #fallen angels actually arent christian theyre from the book of enoch #and then i start to wonder how interested is jaden in jewish theology #because what might be factually true about religious things might be different to how he intended it to be understood #jinsoul as lucifer and hyeju as (one version) of adam also makes sense to me in the way that jinsoul seems to be 'tempting' her in egoist #sorry this is a mess its 2am i hope it makes sense :( lmk if it doesnt

[vacuously-true]

Got a bad grade in Catholicism at my godfather's funeral today folks, said all the Lutheran responses to the Catholic liturgy because I don't know the Catholic versions. It's a little weird being baptized Lutheran with Catholic godparents. aNd WiTh YoUr sPiRiT

#leemursays #mine #lutheran #Catholic

[leebird-simmer]

Russian Fairy Tales Unit 3 Review: The Russian Revolution & the Assassination of the Romanov Family

Tsar Nicholas II (1868-1918)

- primarily of German & Danish descent; his last ethnically Russian ancestor was Grand Duchess Anna Petrovna (1708-1728), daughter of Peter the Great. - related to several monarchs in Europe: Kings Frederick VIII of Denmark & George I of Greece were his maternal uncles and Queen Alexandra of the UK was his maternal aunt. His first cousins included King George V of the UK, King Haakon VII and Queen Maud of Norway, King Christian X of Denmark, and King Constantine I of Greece. - Nicholas and his wife Alexandra were both second cousins (through descent from Louis II, Grand Duke of Hesse and his wife Princess Wilhelmine of Baden) *and* third cousins once removed (they were both descendants of King Frederick William II of Prussia). 1881: Nikki was 13 years old when his grandfather was assassinated in a pretty nasty carriage bombing, which he witnessed. This made his father Tsar Alexander III and made him the heir apparent. 1884: Nikki’s coming-of-age ceremony is held at the Winter Palace. Later that year, his uncle Grand Duke Sergei married Princess Elizabeth of Hesse and by Rhine. At the wedding, the Tsarevich met and admired the bride’s younger sister, Alix. Those feelings of admiration blossomed into love following her visit to St. Petersburg five years later (1889). 1890: Nikki goes on a “Grand Tour” with his younger brother George and their cousin, Prince George of Greece (Grand Duke George fell ill halfway through and got sent home). They visited Egypt, India, Singapore, Thailand, receiving honors as distinguished guests in each country. In Japan, Nicholas had a large dragon tattooed on his right forearm by Japanese tattoo artist Hori Chyo. It was during this trip that one of his Japanese escorts, Tsuda Sanzo, tried to assassinate Nikki with a sabre. He was left with a 9 cm forehead scar, but no life-threatening injuries. The “Otsu incident” as it is known *did* cut the trip short.

- Nikki’s father failed to prepare him for his role as Tsar, arguing that he was not mature enough to take on serious responsibilities: “Nikki is a good boy, but he has a poet’s soul...God help him!” - Alexander assumed that he would live a long life and had plenty of time to prepare his son; there was no need to start right away.

1894: Nikki joins his Uncle Sergei & Aunt Elizabeth on a journey to Coburg, Germany for the wedding of Alix & Elizabeth’s brother Ernest Louis, Grand Duke of Hesse, to their mutual first cousin Princess Victoria Melita of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. During this trip, Nikki proposes to Alix, but she rejects his proposal because she is reluctant to convert from Lutheranism to Russian Orthodoxy. When the Kaiser informed Alix it was her duty to marry Nikki & convert, she accepted, and they became officially engaged on April 20, 1894. Nikki’s parents had not been too impressed with Alix, but since Tsar Alexander’s health had begun to decline, they agreed to the marriage. In early November, Tsar Alexander III died at the age of 49, leaving 26 yr old Nicholas as Emperor of Russia. That evening, Nicholas was consecrated by his father’s priest as Nicholas II and the following day, Alix was received into the Russian Orthodox Church, taking the name Alexandra Feodorovna.

Nicholas chose to maintain the conservative policies favored by his father throughout his reign. While Alexander III had concentrated on the formulation of general policy, Nicholas devoted much more attention to the details of administration. Too bad this attention to detail didn’t keep him from making a series of TERRIBLE mistakes, starting from day one.

1. The Khodynka Tragedy (AKA “Dear Diary, My Coronation Day Has A Body Count)

2. Letting Jesus Take the Wheel

Nicholas believed that God chose him to be Tsar and therefore his decisions reflected the will of God and could not be disputed. This belief made him a very stubborn ruler who rejected constitutional limits on his power. It put him into conflict with the emerging political consensus among the Russian elite. It also created distrust between the Church hierarchy and the Tsar, when the Church *should* have been a reliable base for him. 

3. The Russo-Japanese War

In fairness, the war itself was probably inevitable. What was NOT inevitable was Nikki’s bias against the Japanese as “small of stature, feminine, weak, and inferior.” This insistence that the Japanese were racially inferior and had a weak military prevented Nikki from seeing the obvious: Japan was absolutely destroying his navy. He had to begged by multiple advisors and relatives to pursue peace and even then, he was so reluctant to make concessions that his minister Witte had to go behind his back to end the war.

4. Anti-Jewish Pogroms

Publicly condemned, privately condoned, these pogroms killed thousands of Russian Jews. After the brave action of Jewish revolutionary Dmitry Bogrov, who assassinated Pyotr Stolypin in 1911, Nicholas relented and got the government to stop persecuting Jewish citizens.

5. Bloody Sunday

6. 1905 Revolution

Around August/September, after his diplomatic success in ending the Russo-Japanese War, Witte wrote to the Tsar stressing the urgent need for political reforms at home. With the defeat of Russia by a non-Western power, the prestige and authority of the autocratic regime fell significantly. The Tsar remained impassive and indulgent; he spent most of that autumn hunting.

In October, a railway strike developed into a general strike that shut down the country. In a city without electricity, Witte told the Tsar that “the country was at the verge of a cataclysmic revolution.” The Tsar was like “fine, you can have the Imperial Duma” and agreed to give up part of his unlimited power.

On November 1 1905, Princess Milica of Montenegro introduced Nikki & Alix to Grigori Rasputin.

Grigori Rasputin (1869-1916)

- born a peasant in a small village along the Tura River - almost nothing is known about his youth and early adulthood

1886: Rasputin travels to Abalak, Russia and meets a peasant girl named Praskovya Dubrovina. After a courtship of several months, they married in February 1887. Praskovya remained in Rasputin’s home village of Pokrovskoye throughout Rasputin’s later travels and was devoted to him until his death. The couple had seven children, although only three survived to adulthood.

1897: Rasputin leaves home to go on a religious pilgrimage. He was twenty-eight, married ten years, with an infant son and another child on the way. According to Douglas Smith, his decision "could only have been occasioned by some sort of emotional or spiritual crisis."

Rasputin may have spent several months at Verkhoturye, and it was perhaps here that he learned to read and write, but he later complained about the monastery, claiming that some of the monks engaged in homosexuality and criticizing monastic life as too coercive. He returned to Pokrovskoye a changed man, looking disheveled and behaving differently. He became a vegetarian, swore off alcohol, and prayed and sang much more fervently than he had in the past.

By the early 1900s, Rasputin had developed a small circle of followers, primarily family members, and other local peasants, who prayed with him on Sundays and other holy days when he was in Pokrovskoye. Building a makeshift chapel in Efim's root cellar—Rasputin was still living within his father's household at the time—the group held secret prayer meetings there. These meetings were the subject of some suspicion and hostility from the village priest and other villagers. It was rumored that female followers were ceremonially washing him before each meeting, that the group sang strange songs, and even that Rasputin had joined the Khlysty, a religious sect whose ecstatic rituals were rumored to include self-flagellation and sexual orgies. However, there have been several investigations into these claims, and nobody has ever been able to establish that Rasputin was a Khlyst.

Alternative religious movements such as spiritualism and theosophy had become popular among the city's aristocracy before Rasputin's arrival in St. Petersburg, and many of the aristocracy were intensely curious about the occult and the supernatural. Rasputin's ideas and "strange manners" made him the subject of intense curiosity among St Petersburg's elite, who according to historian Joseph Fuhrmann were "bored, cynical, and seeking new experiences" during this period. His appeal may have been enhanced by the fact that he was also a native Russian, unlike other self-described "holy men" such as Nizier Anthelme Philippe and Gérard Encausse, who had previously been popular in St Petersburg.

By 1905, Rasputin had formed friendships with several members of the aristocracy, including the "Black Princesses", Militsa and Anastasia of Montenegro, who had married the tsar's cousins (Grand Duke Peter Nikolaevich and Prince George Maximilianovich Romanowsky), and were instrumental in introducing Rasputin to the tsar and his family.

Alexei Nikolaevich (1904-1918)

The young heir was afflicted with Hemophilia B, a hereditary disease that prevents blood from clotting properly, which at that time was untreatable and usually led to an untimely death. As a granddaughter of Queen Victoria, Alexandra carried the same gene mutation that afflicted several of the major European royal houses, such as Prussia and Spain. Hemophilia, therefore, became known as "the royal disease". Through Alexandra, the disease had passed on to her son. 

Because of the fragility of the autocracy at this time, Nicholas and Alexandra chose to keep secret Alexei's condition. Even within the household, many were unaware of the exact nature of the Tsarevich's illness. At first Alexandra turned to Russian doctors and medics to treat Alexei; however, their treatments generally failed, and Alexandra increasingly turned to mystics and holy men. Much of Rasputin's influence with the royal family stemmed from the belief by Alexandra and others that he had on several occasions eased the pain and stopped the bleeding of tsarevich Alexei.  

It is unclear when Rasputin first learned of Alexei's hemophilia, or when he first acted as a healer. He may have been aware of Alexei's condition as early as October 1906, and was summoned by Alexandra to pray for Alexei when he had an internal hemorrhage in the spring of 1907. Alexei recovered the next morning. 

During the summer of 1912, Alexei developed a hemorrhage in his thigh and groin after a jolting carriage ride near the royal hunting grounds at Spala, which caused a large hematoma. In severe pain and delirious with fever, the tsarevich appeared close to death. In desperation, Alexandra asked a mutual friend to send Rasputin a telegram, asking him to pray for Alexei. Rasputin wrote back quickly, telling Alexandra that "God has seen your tears and heard your prayers. Do not grieve. The Little One will not die. Do not allow the doctors to bother him too much." The next morning, Alexei's condition was unchanged, but Alexandra was encouraged by the message and regained some hope that Alexei would survive. Alexei's bleeding stopped the following day. Alexandra believed that Rasputin had performed a miracle, and concluded that he was essential to Alexei's survival. 

The royal family’s belief in Rasputin’s healing powers brought him considerable power and status at court. The tsar appointed Rasputin his lampadnik (lamplighter), charged with keeping the lamps lit before religious icons in the palace, and this gained him regular access to the palace and royal family. Rasputin used his position to full effect, accepting bribes and sexual favors from his admirers while working diligently to expand his influence.

Rasputin was accused by his enemies of heresy and rape, was suspected of exerting undue political influence over the tsar, and was even rumored to be having an affair with the tsarina. Opposition to Rasputin's influence grew within the church. In 1907, the local clergy in Pokrovskoye denounced Rasputin as a heretic, and the Bishop of Tobolsk launched an inquest into his activities, accusing him of "spreading false, Khlyst-like doctrines".  

In St Petersburg, Rasputin faced opposition from even more prominent critics, including prime minister Peter Stolypin and the Okhrana, the Tsar's secret police. Having ordered an investigation into Rasputin's activities, Stolypin confronted the Tsar about him but did not succeed in reining in Rasputin's influence or exiling him from St Petersburg. Rumors multiplied that Rasputin had assaulted female followers and behaved inappropriately on visits to the royal family – and particularly with the Tsar's teenage daughters Olga and Tatyana, rumors reported widely in the press after March 1910.

July 12, 1914: 33 yr old peasant woman Chionya Guseva attempts to assassinate Rasputin by stabbing him in the stomach outside his home in Pokrovskoye. Rasputin was seriously wounded, and for a time it was not clear if he would survive. After surgery and some time in the hospital, he recovered. Guseva claimed to have acted alone, having read about Rasputin in the newspapers and believing him to be a "false prophet and even an Antichrist". She was found to be not responsible for her actions by reason of insanity.

Russia Joins the Great War

June 28, 1914: Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, is assassinated by a Bosnian Serb nationalist in Sarajevo. The concept of Pan-Slavism and shared religion created strong public sympathy between Russia and Serbia. Territorial conflict created rivalries between Germany and France and between Austria-Hungary and Serbia, and as a consequence alliance networks developed across Europe. Nicholas wanted neither to abandon Serbia to the ultimatum of Austria, nor to provoke a general war. In a series of letters exchanged with Wilhelm of Germany (the "Willy–Nicky correspondence") the two proclaimed their desire for peace, and each attempted to get the other to back down. Nicholas desired that Russia's mobilization be only against Austria-Hungary, in the hopes of preventing war with Germany.

July 25, 1914: Nicholas decides to intervene in the Austro-Serbian conflict, a step toward general war.

July 28, 1914: Austria-Hungary formally declares war against Serbia.

July 29, 1914: Count Witte tells the French ambassador (a man by the delightful name of Maurice Paleologue) that Slav solidarity is nonsense and Russia has nothing to gain from this war.

July 30, 1914: Nicholas took the fateful step of confirming the order for general mobilization, despite being strongly counselled against it. Upon discovering this, Germany announced their own pre-mobilization posture, the Imminent Danger of War, and requested that Russia demobilize within the next twelve hours. In Saint Petersburg, at 7 pm, with the ultimatum to Russia having expired, the German ambassador to Russia met with the Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Sazonov, asked three times if Russia would reconsider, and then with shaking hands, delivered the note accepting Russia's war challenge and declaring war on August 1, 1914. Less than a week later, on August 6, Franz Joseph signed the Austro-Hungarian declaration of war on Russia.

Russia was grossly unprepared for this war. Germany had ten times as much railway track per square mile, and whereas Russian soldiers travelled an average of 1,290 kilometres (800 mi) to reach the front, German soldiers traveled less than a quarter of that distance. Russian heavy industry was still too small to equip the massive armies the Tsar could raise, and her reserves of munitions were pitifully small; while the German army in 1914 was better equipped than any other, man-for-man, the Russians were severely short on artillery pieces, shells, motorized transports, and even boots. With the Baltic Sea barred by German U-boats and the Dardanelles by the guns of Germany's ally, the Ottoman Empire, Russia initially could receive help only via Archangel, which was frozen solid in winter, or via Vladivostok, which was over 6,400 kilometres (4,000 mi) from the front line. By 1915, a rail line was built north from Petrozavodsk to the Kola Gulf and this connection laid the foundation of the ice-free port of what eventually was called Murmansk. The Russian High Command was moreover greatly weakened by the mutual contempt between Vladimir Sukhomlinov, the Minister of War, and the incompetent Grand Duke Nicholas Nikolayevich who commanded the armies in the field.

In spite of all of this, an immediate attack was ordered against the German province of East Prussia. The Germans mobilised there with great efficiency and completely defeated the two Russian armies which had invaded. The Battle of Tannenberg, where an entire Russian army was annihilated, cast an ominous shadow over Russia's future. Russia had great success against both the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman armies from the very beginning of the war, but they never succeeded against the might of the German Army. Gradually a war of attrition set in on the vast Eastern Front, where the Russians were facing the combined forces of the German and Austro-Hungarian armies, and they suffered staggering losses. Defeat at the front bred disorder at home. At first, the targets were German, and for three days in June shops, bakeries, factories, private houses and country estates belonging to people with German names were looted and burned. The inflamed mobs then turned on the government, declaring the Empress should be shut up in a convent, the Tsar deposed and Rasputin hanged. 

Nicholas was by no means deaf to these discontents. An emergency session of the Duma was summoned and a Special Defense Council established, its members drawn from the Duma and the Tsar's ministers. The energetic and efficient General Alexei Polivanov replaced Sukhomlinov as Minister of War, which failed to improve the strategic situation. In the aftermath of the Great Retreat and the loss of the Kingdom of Poland, Nicholas assumed the role of commander-in-chief after dismissing his cousin, Grand Duke Nicholas Nikolayevich, in September 1915. This was a mistake, as the Tsar came to be personally associated with the continuing losses at the front. He was also away at the remote HQ at Mogilev, far from the direct governance of the empire, and when revolution broke out in Petrograd he was unable to halt it. In reality the move was largely symbolic, since all important military decisions were made by his chief-of-staff General Michael Alexeiev, and Nicholas did little more than review troops, inspect field hospitals, and preside over military luncheons.

Cut off from public opinion, Nicholas could not see that the dynasty was tottering. With Nicholas at the front, domestic issues and control of the capital were left with his wife Alexandra. However, Alexandra's relationship with Grigori Rasputin, and her German background, further discredited the dynasty's authority. Nicholas had been repeatedly warned about the destructive influence of Rasputin but had failed to remove him. Rumors and accusations about Alexandra and Rasputin appeared one after another; Alexandra was even accused of harboring treasonous sympathies towards Germany. One outspoken member of the Duma, far-right politician Vladimir Purishkevich, stated in November 1916 that he held the tsar's ministers had "been turned into marionettes, marionettes whose threads have been taken firmly in hand by Rasputin and the Empress Alexandra Fyodorovna – the evil genius of Russia and the Tsarina… who has remained a German on the Russian throne and alien to the country and its people".

The Slapstick Assassination of Rasputin

A group of nobles led by Prince Felix Yusupov, Grand Duke Dmitri Pavlovich, and the aforementioned Vladimir Purishkevich concocted a plan in December 1916 to kill Rasputin, apparently by luring him to the Yusupovs' Moika Palace. The story that Yusupov recounted in his memoirs has become the most frequently told version of events.

Yusupov said he invited Rasputin to his home shortly after midnight and ushered him into the basement. Yusupov offered Rasputin tea and cakes which had been laced with cyanide. Rasputin initially refused the cakes but then began to eat them and, to Yusupov's surprise, appeared unaffected by the poison. Rasputin then asked for some Madeira wine (which had also been poisoned) and drank three glasses, but still showed no sign of distress. 

At around 2:30 am, Yusupov excused himself to go upstairs, where his fellow conspirators were waiting. He took a revolver from Dmitry Pavlovich, then returned to the basement and told Rasputin that he'd "better look at the crucifix and say a prayer", referring to a crucifix in the room, then shot him once in the chest. The conspirators then drove to Rasputin's apartment, with Sukhotin wearing Rasputin's coat and hat in an attempt to make it look as though Rasputin had returned home that night.

Upon returning to the Moika Palace, Yusupov went back to the basement to ensure that Rasputin was dead. Suddenly, Rasputin leaped up and attacked Yusupov, who freed himself with some effort and fled upstairs. Rasputin followed Yusupov into the palace's courtyard, where he was shot by Purishkevich. He collapsed into a snowbank. The conspirators then wrapped his body in cloth, drove it to the Petrovsky Bridge, and dropped it into the Malaya Nevka River. interesting postscript: Rasputin’s daughter Maria later emigrated to France and then the United States, where she became a dancer and a lion tamer in the circus.

The February Revolution

By early 1917, Russia was on the verge of total collapse of morale. An estimated 1.7 million Russian soldiers were killed in World War I. The sense of failure and imminent disaster was everywhere. The army had taken 15 million men from the farms and food prices had soared. An egg cost four times what it had in 1914, butter five times as much. The severe winter dealt the railways, overburdened by emergency shipments of coal and supplies, a crippling blow.

Russia entered the war with 20,000 locomotives; by 1917, 9,000 were in service, while the number of serviceable railway wagons had dwindled from half a million to 170,000. In February 1917, 1,200 locomotives burst their boilers and nearly 60,000 wagons were immobilized. In Petrograd, supplies of flour and fuel had all but disappeared. War-time prohibition of alcohol was enacted by Nicholas to boost patriotism and productivity, but instead damaged the funding of the war, due to the treasury now being deprived of alcohol taxes.

On 23 February 1917 in Petrograd, a combination of very severe cold weather and acute food shortages caused people to start to break into shop to get bread and other necessities. In the streets, red banners appeared and the crowds chanted "Down with the German woman! Down with Protopopov! Down with the war! Down with the Tsar!" Police shot at the populace, which incited riots. The troops in the capital were poorly motivated and their officers had no reason to be loyal to the regime, with the bulk of the tsar's loyalists away fighting World War I. In contrast, the soldiers in Petrograd were angry, full of revolutionary fervor and sided with the populace. The Tsar's Cabinet begged Nicholas to return to the capital and offered to resign completely. The Tsar, 800 kilometres (500 mi) away, misinformed by the Minister of the Interior Alexander Protopopov that the situation was under control, ordered that firm steps be taken against the demonstrators. 

For this task, the Petrograd garrison was quite unsuitable. The cream of the old regular army had been destroyed in Poland and Galicia. In Petrograd, 170,000 recruits, country boys or older men from the working-class suburbs of the capital itself, were available under the command of officers at the front and cadets not yet graduated from the military academies. The units in the capital, although many bore the names of famous Imperial Guard regiments, were in reality rear or reserve battalions of these regiments, the regular units being away at the front. Many units, lacking both officers and rifles, had never undergone formal training. General Khabalov attempted to put the Tsar's instructions into effect on the morning of Sunday, 11 March 1917. Despite huge posters ordering people to keep off the streets, vast crowds gathered and were only dispersed after some 200 had been shot dead, though a company of the Volinsky Regiment fired into the air rather than into the mob, and a company of the Pavlovsky Life Guards shot the officer who gave the command to open fire. Nicholas, informed of the situation by Rodzianko, ordered reinforcements to the capital and suspended the Duma. However, it was too late.

March 12, 1917: The Volinsky Regiment mutinied and was quickly followed by the Semenovsky, the Ismailovsky, the Litovsky Life Guards and even the legendary Preobrazhensky Regiment of the Imperial Guard, the oldest and staunchest regiment founded by Peter the Great. The arsenal was pillaged and the Ministry of the Interior, Military Government building, police headquarters, Law Courts and a score of police buildings were set on fire. By noon, the fortress of Peter and Paul, with its heavy artillery, was in the hands of the insurgents. By nightfall, 60,000 soldiers had joined the revolution. Order broke down and members of the Duma and the Soviet formed a Provisional Government to try to restore order. They issued a demand that Nicholas must abdicate. Faced with this demand, which was echoed by his generals, deprived of loyal troops, with his family firmly in the hands of the Provisional Government, and fearful of unleashing civil war and opening the way for German conquest, Nicholas had little choice but to submit.

Abdication & Exile

Nicholas had suffered a coronary occlusion only four days before his abdication. He first abdicated in favor of Alexei, but a few hours later changed his mind after advice from doctors that Alexei would not live long enough while separated from his parents, who would be forced into exile. Nicholas thus abdicated on behalf of his son, and drew up a new manifesto naming his brother, Grand Duke Michael, as the next Emperor of all Russias. He issued a statement but it was suppressed by the Provisional Government. Michael declined to accept the throne until the people were allowed to vote through a Constituent Assembly for the continuance of the monarchy or a republic. 

The abdication of Nicholas II and Michael's deferment of accepting the throne brought three centuries of the Romanov dynasty's rule to an end. The fall of Tsarist autocracy brought joy to liberals and socialists in Britain and France. The United States was the first foreign government to recognize the Provisional government. In Russia, the announcement of the Tsar's abdication was greeted with many emotions, including delight, relief, fear, anger and confusion.

Both the Provisional Government and Nicholas wanted the royal family to go into exile following his abdication, with the United Kingdom being the preferred option. The British government reluctantly offered the family asylum on 19 March 1917, although it was suggested that it would be better for the Romanovs to go to a neutral country. The offer of asylum was withdrawn in April following objections by King George V, who, acting on the advice of his secretary Arthur Bigge, 1st Baron Stamfordham, was worried that Nicholas's presence might provoke an uprising like the previous year's Easter Rising in Ireland. In the early summer of 1917, the Russian government approached the British government on the issue of asylum and was informed the offer had been withdrawn due to the considerations of British internal politics.

The French government declined to accept the Romanovs in view of increasing unrest on the Western Front and on the home front as a result of the ongoing war with Germany. The British ambassador in Paris, Lord Francis Bertie, advised the Foreign Secretary that the Romanovs would be unwelcome in France as the ex-Empress was regarded as pro-German.

Even if an offer of asylum had been forthcoming, there would have been other obstacles to be overcome. The Provisional Government only remained in power through an uneasy alliance with the Petrograd Soviet, an arrangement known as "The Dual power". An initial plan to send the royal family to the northern port of Murmansk had to be abandoned when it was realized that the railway workers and the soldiers guarding them were loyal to the Petrograd Soviet, which opposed the escape of the tsar; a later proposal to send the Romanovs to a neutral port in the Baltic Sea via the Grand Duchy of Finland faced similar difficulties.

Execution of the Royal Family

The Romanovs were imprisoned in a series of decreasingly luxurious quarters until they finally ended up in Yekaterinburg at Ipatiev House, AKA the “House of Special Purpose,” perhaps the most ominous name one could give a house.  In the early hours of 17 July 1918, the royal family was awakened around 2:00 am, got dressed, and were led down into a half-basement room at the back of the house. The pretext for this move was the family's safety, i.e. that anti-Bolshevik forces were approaching Yekaterinburg, and the house might be fired upon.

A firing squad had been assembled and was waiting in an adjoining room, composed of seven Communist soldiers from Central Europe, and three local Bolsheviks, all under the command of Yurovsky. Nicholas was carrying his son. When the family arrived in the basement, the former Tzar asked if chairs could be brought in for his wife and son to sit on. Yurovsky ordered two chairs brought in, and when the empress and the heir were seated, the executioners filed into the room. Yurovsky announced to them that the Ural Soviet of Workers' Deputies had decided to execute them. A stunned Nicholas asked, "What? What did you say?" and turned toward his family. Yurovsky quickly repeated the order and Nicholas said, according to Peter Ermakov, "You know not what you do."

The executioners drew handguns and began shooting; Nicholas was the first to die. Nicholas was shot several times in the chest (sometimes erroneously said to have been shot in his head, but his skull bore no bullet wounds when it was discovered in 1991). Anastasia, Tatiana, Olga, and Maria survived the first hail of bullets; the sisters were wearing over 1.3 kilograms of diamonds and precious gems sewn into their clothing, which provided some initial protection from the bullets and bayonets. They were then stabbed with bayonets and finally shot at close range in their heads. The bodies were driven to nearby woodland, searched and burned. The remains were soaked in acid and finally thrown down a disused mineshaft. On the following day, other members of the Romanov family including Grand Duchess Elizabeth Feodorovna, the empress's sister, who were being held in a school at Alapayevsk, were taken to another mine shaft and thrown in alive, except for Grand Duke Sergei Mikhailovich who was shot when he tried to resist.

An announcement from the Presidium of the Ural Regional Soviet of the Workers' and Peasants' Government emphasized that conspiracies had been exposed to free the ex-tsar, that counter-revolutionary forces were pressing in on Soviet Russian territory, and that the ex-tsar was guilty of unforgivable crimes against the nation. {My opinion: they’re right! They did have to execute the Romanovs. But that does not make it any less sad that five young people who had never held power, who did not choose their parents, had to die for the failures of Nikki & Alix. I think of all the other Russian youths shot and bayoneted because of the Tsar and weep for them as well, though their names and faces are unknown to me.}

#russian history #russian revolution #romanov family #study blog