Podcasts about emperor napoleon

ادامه میدیم داستان ناپلئون رو، این بار همراه با تابلوهای ژاک لویی داوید از اوج و مراسم تاج گذاری او میرسیم به سقوط و مرگ امپراتور.لینک صفحه‌ی حامی باش:https://hamibash.com/Gessopodcastتابلوی مراسم تاج گذاری ناپلئون:https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1e/Jacques-Louis_David_-_The_Coronation_of_Napoleon_%281805-1807%29.jpgتابلوی ناپلئون در دفتر کارش در کاخ توئیلری:https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/The_Emperor_Napoleon_in_His_Study_at_the_Tuileries%2C_by_Jacques-Louis_David_%281812%29_-_National_Gallery_of_Art_%28Samuel_H._Kress_Foundation%29_-_2.jpgقطعات موسیقی:Johann Strauss ll - Persischer MarschCoronation Mass - Wolfgang Amadeus MozartAdagio for Strings - Barber Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Today's episode is the first of three this week with the theatre director and writer Dominic Dromgoole, exploring revolutionary events in the world of art and theatre, starting with the opening of the Salon des Refusés in Paris in May 1863. How did the Emperor Napoleon end up sponsoring such a counter-cultural event? Why did it provoke such public outrage and astonishment? And in what ways did Manet's Le Déjeuner sur l'herbe revolutionise what was possible in the creation and consumption of modern art? A new edition of our newsletter is out now with guides to the events of the Paris Commune and much more. Sign up to get it every fortnight https://www.ppfideas.com/newsletters Next time: Ubu Roi w/Dominic Dromgoole Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

With chocolate prices at record highs, brands are handing out gummies this Halloween… and it goes back to Emperor Napoleon.Uniqlo, Japan's fast-fashion brand, just enjoyed its 3rd-straight record year… because the 75/50 rule.The most successful entrepreneurs in America right now… are in plumbing and air-conditioning.Plus, we already know who won the election… It's a New Jersey company that makes hats for both campaigns.$HSY $NSRGY $GPSSubscribe to our new (2nd) show… The Best Idea Yet: Wondery.fm/TheBestIdeaYetLinksEpisodes drop weekly. It's The Best Idea Yet.—-----------------------------------------------------GET ON THE POD: Submit a shoutout or fact: https://tboypod.com/shoutouts FOR MORE NICK & JACK: Newsletter: https://tboypod.com/newsletter Connect with Nick: https://www.linkedin.com/in/nicolas-martell/ Connect with Jack: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jack-crivici-kramer/ SOCIALS:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/tboypod TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@tboypodYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@tboypod Anything else: https://tboypod.com/ See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

To round out our Meet the Bonapartes series, we turn to Napoleon's eldest - and apparently coolest - brother, Joseph. Affable, charming, and comfortable in his own skin, he was a contrast to most of his siblings, including Napoleon. His easygoing nature made him popular even with political opponents, and Joseph was an important player in Napoleon's rise. As a reward, Emperor Napoleon named Joseph the King of Naples, where he fashioned himself a man of the people and governed them well, implementing various government reforms, fighting crime, and creating jobs by building infrastructure. His reign in Naples was short lived, however, as Napoleon replaced him with their sister Caroline and her husband, Joachim Murat. Napoleon then dispatched Joseph to govern occupied Spain, where the public mood was very different. Not only was Spain's King Joseph reviled by commoners and elites alike, he himself became fairly burned out with the family business in this era. After Napoleon's defeat, he hopped a boat for New York and in a lot of ways, never looked back. He spent decades mostly living a quiet, prosperous life in New Jersey, before returning to Europe to be closer to his remaining family in his later years. Listen ad-free at patreon.com/trashyroyalspodcast. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Year(s) Discussed: 1813-1814 The Allied forces of Europe were drawing ever closer to the French capital in the early months of 1814, and the Emperor Napoleon had to consider what options remained for him and for his empire. Meanwhile, American diplomats in Europe worked to determine what impact events on the continent would have on negotiations with the British while President Madison appointed new commissioners to join the diplomats already in Europe. Sources used for this episode can be found at https://www.presidenciespodcast.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In the sixth and final installment on the French Revolution, Dan takes a deep dive into one of history's most influential and controversial figures: Napoleon Bonaparte. After winning victory for France in Northern Italy, the brilliant young general has the attention of the French Directory. A campaign in Egypt and victory in another war will put Napoleon in a position to become Emperor. But across the English Channel, Great Britain continues a naval blockade and a diplomatic campaign to unite Europe against the new French Empire. To hold onto power, Napoleon will battle a series of coalitions, each time hoping it will be the last. Win or lose, one thing is certain: Europe – and the world – will never be the same. NOTE: Because this is a very long episode, I have included timestamps for each chapter at the end of this description.   SUBSCRIBE TO RELEVANT HISTORY, AND NEVER MISS AN EPISODE! Relevant History Patreon: https://bit.ly/3vLeSpF Subscribe on Spotify: https://spoti.fi/38bzOvo Subscribe on Apple Music (iTunes): https://apple.co/2SQnw4q Subscribe on Any Platform: https://bit.ly/RelHistSub     Relevant History on Twitter/X: https://bit.ly/3eRhdtk Relevant History on Facebook: https://bit.ly/2Qk05mm Official website: https://bit.ly/3btvha4   Episode transcript (90% accurate): https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vSX7OwjHODNJxt3aNlynA1e2SPLsHaavqDrhe4RmhOWBJwB23UlY84yO6nIXdutScKLplri9xQVUIwi/pub Music credit: Sergey Cheremisinov - Black Swan   CHAPTER TIMESTAMPS: Introduction – 0:00:00 Chapter 1: The French Directory – 0:5:09 Chapter 2: The Invasion of Egypt – 0:33:03 Chapter 3: The Second Directory – 0:55:04 Chapter 4: Napoleon Takes Command – 1:10:32 Chapter 5: The War of the Second Coalition – 1:41:18 Chapter 6: The French Consulate – 2:20:01 Chapter 7: A Changing Continent – 2:47:07 Chapter 8: Emperor Napoleon – 3:08:54 Chapter 9: The War of the Third Coalition – 3:32:04 Chapter 10: Austerlitz – 3:52:41 Chapter 11: The End of an Empire – 4:13:22 Chapter 12: The War of the Fourth Coalition – 4:30:35 Chapter 13: The Continental System and the Peninsular War – 4:48:09 Chapter 14: Re-Painting the Map of Europe – 5:02:30 Chapter 15: The War of the Fifth Coalition – 5:21:38 Chapter 16: Life in Napoleonic France – 5:42:49 Chapter 17: Spies and Diplomats – 5:54:01 Chapter 18: The Grande Armée – 6:10:27 Chapter 19: The Arson of Moscow – 6:31:46 Chapter 20: The War of 1812 – 6:41:45 Chapter 21: The War of the Sixth Coalition – 6:49:15 Chapter 22: The Fall of an Emperor – 7:28:24 Chapter 23: Elba – 7:44:39 Chapter 24: The Bourbon Restoration – 7:56:20 Chapter 25: The March to Paris – 8:13:11 Chapter 26: The Hundred Days – 8:28:31 Chapter 27: Waterloo – 8:43:24 Chapter 28: The Death of a Legend – 9:02:22 Chapter 29: The World After Napoleon – 9:14:19 Epilogue: What Did the French Revolution Achieve? – 9:42:38

Emperor Napoleon and Empress Josephine Bonaparte... welcome to the obsessive, beautiful, terrible, and erotic relationship between two of some of France's (and the world's) most iconic rulers.Purchase your own mead hereMake sure to use code SPILLTHEMEAD10 at checkout!Join our Patreon for extra content!You can purchase Spill the Mead merchandise at spill-the-mead.printify.meMusic is composed by Nicholas Leigh nicholasleighmusic.comFind us on Instagram, TikTok, Twitter, and Facebook @spillthemeadpodcastFind Madi @myladygervais on Instagram and @ladygervais on TikTokFind Emily @ladybourdon on Instagram and @lady.bourdon on TikTok

When I was fallen away, I thought Richard Dawkins was interesting. I recall the time I saw Dawkins speak at a bookstore (Powell's in Portland, long ago). At the time I thought he was cool. I liked how he was undermining the new “Pharisees” of the modern age and sowing discord among the “Christian hypocrites” as I had yet to realize that we're all sinners. But in watching and listening to Dawkins it dawned on me after only about ten minutes how miserable he seemed, even in his arguments. The smugness filled the room. In contrast I thought of my grandmother with her rosary and the joy in her that she brought to her family. I thought of the billions of people who found hope in faith. His uninspiring message made me leave that talk feeling empty, the opposite of how I felt around my grandmother and other Christians. I entered as a Dawkins fan, only to leave repulsed by his message.Now, with that said I am somewhat grateful for Dawkins because without pure materialists like him, I may never have come back to the faith. It was like a prescribed burn in a field clearing the weeds so that the new life could spring forth. I do believe that is what's happening today in the wider world.Dawkins is the only one who really puts all his chips in the middle and lays his cards on the table. Atheists don't buy the bluff that much of postmodernism is selling. He would reject transgenderism and Baal the storm god in the same breath — as would Catholics. Dawkins even knows that deists are just hedging their bets on a bad hand. The only card player left for atheists to play against is those who believe in the one God, the God Most High. The interesting thing about atheists is that they are closer to coming back to belief in the one God than they ever realize, or would ever care to admit, because they've seen through all the smoke and mirrors of the meaningless and dead gods. They actually are closer to understanding the God who sits outside of time and space — who created time and space — than they realize because they reject all of the nonsense and cling ultimately to mathematics.However, I see this as a long process of preparing the seedbed for faith. Because I don't think many modern atheists have read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, or a study Bible like that of Ignatius Press or Word on Fire. Few people have read St. Augustine's Confessions or the Imitation of Christ outside of Catholic circles. And they certainly have not read Veritatis Splendor or Fides et Ratio or Dignitatus Humanae. But if they ever did, they would find that the God we believe in in the Catholic faith is logical, beautiful, and bigger than anything we can ever imagine in creation. But of course, that revelation of a living God comes only by cooperation with God's grace, which is always ready and waiting on a no-interest loan for those who simply ask, seek, and knock. The beauty of the Church is that you get to keep your reason, all of it, and faith makes it soar higher.Dawkins just says what many have been thinking all along, which is this: God doesn't matter. Thomas Jefferson went halfway, but Dawkins just comes out as openly apostate. He is saying that the Emperor has no clothes. He is also like the Emperor Napoleon, when an officer suggested that “God willing” they would take Brussels in the morning. Napoleon allegedly said, “God? God has nothing to do with it.” That's the same answer Dawkins gives. To Dawkins, there is no God, or gods, living or otherwise, outside of our brains. Hence, he's razed the weeds and prepped the soil for coming back to what Abraham and the Apostles and St. Agnes meant by “God.”Of course, Dawkins' grand bet on the selfish gene goes too far. He's all in with all the answers, but he left out of the equation an important variable. He fails to solve for Y, as in “Y are we here?” That is the problem with this worldview, because in a world without meaning, you have to live in that world. So does everyone else, and everyone else is not necessarily an educated PhD who can spend a lifetime inspecting in all corners of science and history. Everyone else lacks the funds and leisure time to find meaning. Everyone else, for the most part, in the end, has to rely on what someone says is true. I take it on faith that germs cause disease and not fairies, even though I have never actually saw either of them infect a person. Dawkins and company can win arguments about how the world works, but what they cannot win an argument about is why a sunset is beautiful. When there is no satisfactory ultimate why, people spend a lifetime searching for that variable. In the end, what the world without a living God results in is someone else taking control by force and dictating that the value of Y must be what they say it is, simply because they said so.So even though I'm not a Dawkins fan, at least he isn't hedging his bets. He's all in, and I actually think deniers like him are closer to finding God than the builders of Babel or the deists like Ben Franklin ever were. Having the door half-open to God is like letting the heat out of the house in winter. At some point, you have to make up your mind to go outside or stay inside. This makes me realize, truly, that we should pray for Richard Dawkins. He may end up bringing more people back to faith in God than we could have ever realized. He is almost at the top of the circle, since when we run away from God, we often find ourselves running right into the arms of God.Today, we are witnessing the outcome of what happens when the ideas of Dawkins are taken to its logical end. The reason Dawkins is wrong is that he doesn't understand what the builders at Babel and the deists like Ben Franklin understood well. The ancient emperors from history and American Founders knew that people needed religion, and to pull that rug out from society would cause the city itself to collapse. Now we are seeing funny religions pop up, because we pretend we don't need one.The root problem for Dawkins is that he has a middle-school concept of God that he never outgrew. He's also operating as an autonomous speaker of “his truth” without a plan or concept of how to organize a world. He doesn't have employees or mouths to feed or an economy to plan. In the walled-in academic world where the idea of “no souls” exists, Dawkins fails to realize something rather large. His theory of the “Selfish Gene” starts from the bottom, instead of the top, and therefore he cannot describe the whole. His answer of “Because of genes!” is too simple. A toe does not describe the wholeness of a person any more than a gene does, and genes cannot explain the totality of human nature. Dawkins is so smart, but he can't understand what simple farmers and mothers and the poor with no education understand perfectly well. You would think an evolutionary biologist would be very equipped to understand the parable of the grain of wheat, but somehow he misses it completely. I find this to be marvelous irony.We need religion. People need religion. Or they will find one. And it won't be what you expect. In the clean, childless world of our universities, ideas sound good that lack depth. Dawkins' answer is from the atomic layer, and he emerges from a quiet library to tell us that we are nothing but atoms. Meanwhile the bustle of the street doesn't hear a word he's said, because life is happening far beyond the atomic layer. When Dawkins' burst forth from his library, he was telling a very different message from what the apostles told when they emerged from the Upper Room at Pentecost, after having received the breath of life, touched by tongues of fire. No, when Dawkins and his disciples emerged in their lab coats to tell us the good news, their message was that respiration is a selfish act to propagate our genes and that there is no meaning to any of it. The apostles had a message of eternal life, while Dawkins made us ponder suicide.So while I commend Dawkins for his honesty, he is actually more foolish than the leaders of Babel or Jefferson. At least the leaders at Babel and Jefferson were offering something to believe in: “Look, here's a tower. It's a Gate to God. See?” And Jefferson and Franklin offer something, too: “Look, here's a sacred document, a Constitution, where we make a nod to God — and also — over there — see the Statue of Liberty?”Dawkins only offers the abyss. And our brains revolt at the idea. We all know the Big Empty is there, but we don't really want to stand on the edge and look into it. We can't. Not for long. The temptation to believe that Dawkins is right draws us all, as doubt is more natural to us than faith. So even if we dabble in disbelief, most move away from the edge in search of a Higher Power of some kind. The search for God, when thwarted or stifled or silenced, erupts like boils, in strange places and in uncomfortable ways. We are already seeing strange religions being born in America now, almost more strange than that of the pagan gods of Babel or America's traditional worship of the rule of law, wealth, and the slippery thing called “Liberty.”The Tower of Babel or the Constitution may be an elaborate way to justify power, but it is a better attempt at meaning than what Dawkins offers the masses. But again, Dawkins is the only honest one, which is also why his idea is the most dangerous. He's the anti-Jesus (I don't want to call him the anti-Christ, because he lacks the charisma needed for that). Dawkins tells us that we are purely material beings without souls. He goes all the way.Most people hold back and speak the old common language that dances around this fact, finding idols and obsessions to occupy or fence off the Big Empty. Dawkins has spent his life shouting this message and now we are seeing what fruit it bears, where we are in fact atomized, solitary beings (kind of like his selfish gene!). When we are just chemical machines, we do indeed act like the “selfish gene” writ large. Again, not only is this message the polar opposite of Christ, but it's brings the polar opposite result. Where people know Christ, they form communities, families, and fellowship. There is warmth amid the struggle. It's not perfect. But when suffering comes, there is a prayer, and a church, and a people, and the Body of Christ. Dawkins inability to get past a small understanding of God leaves him on the playground all alone. As we watch millions of community organizations and church groups fading away in America, we are clearly becoming more atomized, as people sit at home watching TV alone instead of joining the Lions' Club or a bowling team. What is worrisome about this is that Hannah Arendt, who dissected the rise of 1930's totalitarianism, said that loneliness, a.k.a atomization, is a first step toward totalitarianism, because isolated people without purpose or faith are attracted to a powerful ideology that delivers some kind of meaning. Hence, the transgender craze we are seeing is not surprising at all. Those people are seeking God, but it's a long way home. I sympathize because I did the same thing, but with liquor. That's also a long way home.To me, in the end, Dawkins' worldview makes Kurt Cobain or Morrissey seem light-hearted. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit whydidpetersink.substack.com

With Austerlitz and the Peace of Pressburg behind him, Emperor Napoleon uses a small interlude of peace to rearrange the map of Europe in his image.

Year(s) Discussed: 1812-1813 Though the French Army captured Moscow in the fall of 1812, Emperor Napoleon quickly learned that holding it and forcing the Russians to capitulate would prove to be a tougher prospect. Meanwhile, Russian Tsar Aleksandr, concerned about the impact of the War of 1812 on British resolve against France, puts forward an offer to bring about peace with the US, and in Paris, a plot is launched to overthrow the imperial government. Sources used for this episode can be found at https://www.presidenciespodcast.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On this episode of Our American Stories, The History Guy unpacks the largely forgotten saga of the Bonapartes who came to America. The story illustrates the pretensions and complexity of Napoleon's attempts to create a lasting dynasty.  Support the show (https://www.ouramericanstories.com/donate)See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode, I'll discuss my favorite paintings by the Neoclassicist painter Jacques-Louis David. The images featured in this episode are The Swing (1767) by Fragonard, The Oath of the Horatii (1784) by David, The Death of Socrates (1787) by David, The Intervention of the Sabine Women (1799) by David, Napoleon Crossing the Alps (1801) by David, Napoleon I on His Imperial Throne (1806) by Inges, and Emperor Napoleon in His Study at the Tuileries (1812) by David. 

Year(s) Discussed: 1809-1811 As news of Macon's Bill No. 2 reached Europe, US Minister John Armstrong worked to take advantage of the increasingly precarious situation for the French in order to secure a deal with the government of Emperor Napoleon that would restore open trade with that nation. Back in the US, President Madison struggled to address the worsening relations with Great Britain while administration officials in the Orleans Territory dealt with an uprising of enslaved individuals seeking their freedom. Sources used for this episode can be found at https://www.presidenciespodcast.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Why were the people building the Tower of Babel? What was their goal? They were trying to “make a name for themselves” but more subtly, they are building a Gate to God. The root word of Babel means “Gate of God.” Think of Stargate or a science-fiction Portal if it helps you. The Tower is a gateway to bring God near, to control God, to pull him down to earth. There is metaphor here in the Tower, obviously, but metaphor is how we remember and re-tell stories of great meaning. If we were robots we could just use zeroes and ones, but a Tower or Gate to heaven is meant to invoke the image of man overtaking God, which is the reverse of humility before God. Since God made us in his image and likeness, with a body and soul together, God is obviously not a robot. Thank God for that. I, for one, am glad, because staring at code all day at work does not stir me like hearing a well-told story does. Here's the central theme of Babel. If we can pull God down, and lift up ourselves, then we can become god. We can then make God into a kind of pet. That is quite a different idea of God from the great quote from St. Athanasius about why Jesus came to earth. “God became man so that man might become God.” That is a great quote, but wow, it can be easily misunderstood. This makes it sound like through prayer we can become God himself, and hardly sounds different than some of the modern meditation practices that are being used. Karlo Broussard says of this quote: “According to the original Greek of St. Athanasius, the phrase, “that we might become God” is better translated as ‘that we might be deified.'…The idea of sharing in the divine nature means we share what philosophers and theologians identify as God's communicable attributes (goodness, holiness, and love) as opposed to his incommunicable ones (omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, and absolute simplicity).St. Athanasius could have made it easier for us and just said that we can become like God, with the full understanding that we can never become God. That distinction is enormous to gaining understanding of what it means to work toward sanctification and holiness in the Christian life. You can never be God. That's off-limits and impossible. But, you can partake in God's divine nature, particularly through prayer and receiving the Eucharist at Mass. But we never, ever, become God. Not with a million prayers or pushups or a perfect college entry exam score. The addition of the word “like” in his quote has critical meaning, because without it, we might as well be chasing after our divine selves in New Age religions. We are creatures, not divine, made like God - but must never forget that we are not God. That may have been the greatest discovery of my life. What a relief!What Babel is attempting is to justify our behavior by making God into an idol that performs vending machine operations. This God has an LED screen that reads, “Insert two dollars. Press B12 for a sandwich. C36 for drunkenness. F25 for group sex. G31 for an orgy.” At Ziggurats, the priests sacrificed people or animals, but with our vending-machine god we can just use quarters and get whatever we want approved. It's the same thing. People who assume prayer will direct God to take action are making the same assumptions of those at Babel. Prayer is powerful, but not if it's meant to control God, or if it's perceived as controlling God. In fact, again, the atheist may be better off than this person who misunderstands prayer, because prayer used in this way could just as well be a child sacrifice to bring the rain. What's the difference? Both are attempts at controlling God. We can pray for requests, but we must pray for God's will to be done, not ours. The vending machine god of Babel is just as powerless and useless as the absentee God of the Deists. While it probably looked exciting watching sacrifices on those altars at Babel, it was really just the denial of the one God, the God Most High. This is why when Jesus came, he corrected the record and said, “I desire mercy, not sacrifice.” What a statement! What about all those sacrifices in the Temple of Jerusalem? What about all that stuff in Leviticus and Numbers about the goats? I would like to go there now, but I'll continue with Babel or I'll never finish. (If this topic of sacrifice interests you at all, I highly suggest listening to the Lord of Spirits podcast - all of it, from the beginning to the end). The builders of Babel, and the deists like Franklin, and the atheists like Richard Dawkins are all doing the same thing in the end. They are speaking the common language, but Dawkins is the only one who really puts all his chips in the middle and lays his cards on the table. Atheists don't buy the bluff about Baal the storm god and know that the deists are just hedging bets on a bad hand. The only card player left for them is those who believe in the one God. The cool thing about atheists is that they are closer to coming back to belief in the one God than they ever realize, or would ever care to admit, because they've seen through all the smoke and mirrors of the meaningless and dead gods. The reality is this: the builders at Babel are trying to appease a god that is a convenient projection of their own power and desire, while the Deists of early America are tipping their wigs at a dead or fully absent version of God. The ziggurats in America are courts and the Statue of Liberty. Next time you see the Statue of Liberty in New York, you can ponder our worship of “Liberty” and consider the Tower of Babel. Dawkins just says what everyone else in power was thinking all along, which is this: God doesn't matter. He is saying that the Emperor has no clothes. He is also like the Emperor Napoleon, when an officer suggested that “God willing” they would take Brussels in the morning. Napoleon allegedly said, “God? God has nothing to do with it.” That's the same answer Dawkins gives. To Dawkins, the only towers or cathedrals that ever existed were in the mind of those built by mitosis. There is no God, or gods, living or otherwise, outside of our brains. Of course, Dawkins' grand bet on the selfish gene goes too far. He's all in with all the answers, but he left out of the equation an important variable. He fails to solve for Y, as in “Y are we here?” That is the problem with this worldview, because in a world without meaning, you have to live in that world. So does everyone else, and everyone else is not necessarily an educated PhD who can spend a lifetime inspecting in all corners of science and history. Everyone else lacks the funds and leisure time to find meaning. Everyone else, for the most part, in the end, has to rely on what someone says is true. I take it on faith that germs cause disease and not fairies, even though I have never actually saw either of them infect a person. Dawkins and company can win arguments about how the world works, but what they cannot win an arguments about is why a sunset is beautiful. When there is no satisfactory ultimate why, people spend a lifetime searching for that variable. In the end, what the world without a living God results in is someone else taking control by force and dictating that the value of Y must be what they say it is, simply because they said so. So even though I'm not a Dawkins fan, at least he isn't hedging his bets. He's all in, and I actually think deniers like him are closer to finding God than the builders of Babel or the deists like Franklin ever were. Having the door half-open to God is like letting the heat out of the house in winter. At some point, you have to make up your mind to go outside or stay inside. This makes me realize, truly, that we should pray for Richard Dawkins. He may end up bringing more people back to faith in God than we could have ever realized. He is almost at the top of the circle, since when we run away from God, we often find ourselves running right into the arms of God. At Babel, the builders may think there is a God at the end of their staircase, but if they think God can be extracted somehow, or pulled into the universe, then they have actually rejected God. They have invented something new that is not God, not the one true God. I will be coming back to this, because there is something happening at these temples, it's just not what the builders think it is. The God of Israel is outside of time and space. He cannot be accessed via a portal, or gate, or tower. The living Creator God is beyond our understanding. He is transcendent and immanent, near and far. We can know he is living, that his will is being played out at all times, but we cannot control or change God. I don't know how, but even children can understand that God is alive, that he is real. What is being done at the Tower of Babel is the creation of idols, which replace God, reduce God, and substitute God with man-made ideas and desires. An idol is the god of a cynic, not of one who has the faith of a child. When the concept of God nosedives from a living Creator God outside of time and space, it becomes nothing more than a local god that can be manipulated through a gate or a tower. What inevitably follows is that there is no longer sin, or rather, certain sins are approved while others are outlawed. It just depends on who holds power. This is happening before our eyes in America today. An elaborate ritual in a ziggurat is just a big ruse, a power play, but what is really happening is the attempt to control the concept of “God,” because gaining the upper ground on that idea is required to justify whatever behavior those in power want to dictate as acceptable behavior. In our case today, an already bad concept of God is being reduced further as Redditors and public school administrators go to great lengths to ensure that even the word God is removed from our mouths. You can't even say God today at work or at school without potentially losing your job. Interestingly, talk of “sin” is becoming less common at church, which is a clear sign that there is a widespread lack of understanding of the God of Christianity, because you cannot understand your need for God unless you understand your own weakness in sin. The affirmation of sin is the voice of the culture today, and where sin is denied, ziggurats of the mind are constructed. Today, we are witnessing the outcome of what happens when the idea of Dawkins are taken to its logical conclusion. The reason Dawkins is a fool is that he doesn't understand what the builders at Babel and the deists like Franklin understood well. The emperors and Founders of history knew that people needed religion, and to pull that rug out from society would cause the city itself to collapse. Dawkins has a middle-school concept of God that he never outgrew. He's also operating as an autonomous speaker of “his truth” without a plan or concept of how to organize a world. He doesn't have employees or mouths to feed or an economy to plan. In the walled-in academic world where the idea of “no souls” exists, Dawkins fails to realize something rather large. His theory of the “Selfish Gene” starts from the bottom, instead of the top, and therefore he cannot describe the whole. His answer of “Because of genes!” is too simple. A toe does not describe the wholeness of a person any more than a gene does, and genes cannot explain the totality of human nature. Dawkins is so smart, but he can't understand what farmers and mothers with no education understand perfectly well. You would think an evolutionary biologist would be very equipped to understand the parable of the grain of wheat, but somehow he misses it completely. We need religion. People need religion. Or they will find one. And it won't be what you expect. In the clean, childless world of our universities, ideas sound good that lack depth. Dawkins' answer is from the atomic layer, and he emerges from a quiet library to tell us that we are nothing but atoms. Meanwhile the bustle of the street doesn't hear a word he's said, because life is happening far beyond the atomic layer. When Dawkins' burst forth from his library, he was telling a very different message from what the apostles told when they emerged from the Upper Room at Pentecost, after having received the breath of life, touched by tongues of fire. No, when Dawkins and his disciples emerged in their lab coats to tell us the good news, their message was that respiration is a selfish act to propagate our genes and that there is no meaning to any of it. The apostles had a message of eternal life, while Dawkins made us ponder suicide. So while I commend Dawkins for his honesty, he is actually more foolish than the leaders of Babel. At least the leaders at Babel are offering something to believe in: “Look, here's a tower. It's a Gate to God. See?” And Jefferson and Franklin offer something, too: “Look, here's a sacred document, a Constitution, where we make a nod to God - and also - over there - see the Statue of Liberty?”Dawkins only offers the abyss. And our brains revolt at the idea. We all know the Big Empty is there, but we don't really want to stand on the edge and look into it. We can't. Not for long. The temptation to believe that Dawkins is right draws us all, as doubt is more natural to us than faith. So even if we dabble in disbelief, most move away from the edge in search of a Higher Power of some kind. The search for God, when thwarted or stifled or silenced, erupts like boils, in strange places and in uncomfortable ways. We are already seeing strange religions being born in America now, almost more strange than that of the pagan gods of Babel or America's traditional worship of the rule of law, wealth, and the slippery thing called “Liberty.” The Tower of Babel may be an expensive lie to justify power, but it is a better attempt at meaning than what Dawkins offers the masses. But again, Dawkins is the only honest one, which is why his idea is the most dangerous. He's the anti-Jesus (I don't want to call him the anti-Christ, because he lacks the charisma needed for that). Dawkins tells us that we are purely material beings without souls. He goes all the way. Most people hold back and speak the old common language that dances around this fact, finding idols and obsessions to occupy or fence off the Big Empty. Dawkins has spent his life shouting this message and now we are seeing what fruit it bears, where we are in fact atomized, solitary beings - kind of like genes. When we are just chemical machines, we act like the “selfish gene” writ large. Again, not only is this message the polar opposite of Christ, but it's brings the polar opposite result. Where people know Christ, they form communities, families, and fellowship. There is warmth amid the struggle. Dawkins inability to get past middle-school in his understanding of God leaves him out on the playground all alone. As we watch millions of community organizations and church groups fading away in America, we are clearly becoming more atomized, as people sit at home watching TV alone instead of joining the Lions' Club or a bowling team. What is worrisome about this is that Hannah Arendt, who dissected the rise of 1930's totalitarianism, said that loneliness, a.k.a atomization, is a first step toward totalitarianism, because isolated people without purpose or faith are attracted to a powerful ideology that delivers some kind of meaning. So yes, Babel may be called a fool's game, or superstitious nonsense, but in our “common language” we already play a fool's game, and are happy to do it because Dawkins' worldview makes Kurt Cobain or Morissey seem light-hearted. We don't want to mope about in atomized solitude knowing that we are nothing more than chemicals, a bunch of matter mixed together. Even if we suspect we are “just a clump of cells” we don't want to live like a meaningless mass of molecules. We want meaning. We want to kick ass and take names. We want to win the Super Bowl and go to Disney World and sleep with all the cheerleaders. We want to fight, or at the very least, to watch the fight. We want stories, winners, losers, heroes, and goats. We'll believe in that Tower of Babel or Statue of Liberty if it allows us some sport, some entertainment, a full belly, and a chance to get a little action on the side. Dawkins was honest, but even crazy Nero understood human beings better.The Tower of Babel could be summed up in the saying, “If you tell them a lie, don't tell a little one, tell a big one.” This saying has been attributed to Lenin, Hitler, Goebbels, and various other dictators, but this saying precedes those infamous names by thousands of years - probably tens of thousands of years. The “Big Lie” is old; it was just perfected in the 20th century and is now being refined. To maintain power, great narratives must be upheld, and Franklin, Jefferson, and Washington knew this. They understood it better than any ruler in the time of Babel, but the ancient leaders also knew it or they wouldn't have started building a Tower in the first place. The pyramids in Egypt are probably the most famous form the big lie. They were not a Gate to God, but a tomb that said the Pharaoh was god. Caesar was known as a god and built great structures to prove the lie. The Eiffel Tower is a Tower built in an era of denying God, built to celebrate our modern obsession with technology and engineering. In an odd reversal of Babel, the Eiffel Tower is almost like a Tower to keep God away. You might say it was the next logical step after the Statue of Liberty. Then you have, finally, the degradation into modern art structures that have absolutely no meaning whatsoever, like the Bean in Chicago or the Cherry on a Spoon in Minnesota. These are as meaningful as the world's largest ball of twine. The modern structures and buildings have no meaning because, well, you guessed it - there is none! The National Endowment for the Arts is on full Richard Dawkins' mode. You can easily see how things get uglier in art and architecture as we move away from the era of Christendom. This can also be observed in modern churches, which Bishop Robert Barron has appropriately titled “Beige Catholicism,” in a lament at the drabness of churches built in the latter part of the 20th century. Countries still build structures to symbolize their chosen-ness, their righteousness. They still try to convince citizens of blessings from above, even after they have stopped pretending that the power of the state is really just from the status quo. If you walk through the Washington D.C. mall or the Roman Forum, you can still feel awe at what the builders of Babel were intending to achieve. They were offering what the band Poison was searching for when Brett Michaels cried out, “Give me something to believe in.” Unfortunately, you will get spoon-fed poison if you are looking for some “thing” to believe in that is not the living Creator God, because he created all of the “things” that you might be offered. If you have a Gate to God, then whoever owns the Gate can conceivably talk to the god and tell us what god wants. Oddly enough, the god always wants what the owner of the Gate wants. What luck! But in reality, a Gate or Tower or Altar or Pyramid that grants access to God, like Delphi in Greece, is really a trick that those in power use to sell their claim to the crown. All of these structures are a way to kill off the true God, the Most High, the one true God, and replace him with a human who pretends to have the ear of God. What happens is that there is no longer a living Creator God. As long as the economy is looking good, most people don't really care, and bread and circuses do nicely for keeping the masses pacified. Still, it's nice to have some kind of feeling that the god has blessed the nation, even if you suspect it's all nonsense. That's the genius of the ancient kings, and that's how the “Divine Right of Kings” went off the rails in Europe. The bogus claim to power as “God-given” was abused so horribly that the French Revolution was bound to happen. Louis XIV even called himself the Sun King while simultaneously claiming to be a practicing Catholic. I will resist the urge to comment on Joe Biden here, but I will say this: those who use Christianity in the same way that the pagans used their gods, are pagans themselves. In other words, paganism never really died. As for all who would like to say it simply moved into Catholicism, I would suggest reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church before repeating what others have said and judge for yourself. The great casualty of this trick about god and power is that there is no redemptive suffering, no forgiveness, and no reason to love one another. If there is no living God, then of course there is no ultimate truth. The obvious answer is to take power for yourself and for your family. People who lambast the faithful for only behaving out of fear of hell suggest that believers would be robbing and looting if not for God. They argue that you can be good without God, but they are making that argument in the days of plenty, when famine and economic meltdown have not yet hit. The rise of atheism has coincided with the most bountiful era of food production and wealth in human history. That is not a coincidence. When the economic winds change and the grocery stores shelves are empty, we will see how “good” people are without God. After all, God helps those who help themselves. Let's now return to the Bible, to Genesis, to look at the world after the Tower of Babel story. There is a key difference in dealing with God in the post-Babel chapters, when Abraham and Jacob show up. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.whydidpetersink.com

Dawn usually records around her kitchen table, but as guest, Kristal Adams, recently had her cars stolen, she instead packed up the recording equipment and headed to Kristal's place near downtown Los Angeles. As it turns out, the quietest and most comfortable place to record was smack in the middle of Kristals bed. Tres bien. 00:03:55 - Dawn goes through Kristal's most exciting credits including as a writer on Legomasters, and The Circle on Netflix, and she promotes her hilarious comedy album Aint I A Wombat. 00:05:12 - Kristal explains to Dawn that her lack of car has been part of the decision to move to New York City - where you don't need one! Dawn likes the idea but gives her some food for thought as she heads into living in her first 'winter climate' state. 00:09:42 - We learn a little bit more about Kristal's French husband, Fabrice, and how he has spurred both her interest in French Literature and her desire to ask ANYONE BUT HIM to tell her about it. Voila! Moi!  Dawn explains that since 'French Literature' is such a huge subject, she focused her attention on The Three Musketeers and it's author Alexander Dumas... but of course it all begins with The French Revolution. 00:12:46 - The French Revolution has to precede any in-depth conversation about French Literature because for so much of our most-loved figures it was a central event. From Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette, through the Reign of Terror and past the execution of Robespierre - we give Kristal a lot to chew on around the ol' Fromage Tray. 00:22:52 - Lots of sources generally say the French Revolution ended with the execution of Robespierre in 1794 but in fact there were several more revolutions and, of course, the Emperor Napoleon. 00:30:00 - With some general French History and some specific French Revolution History in our back pocket, we move on to the author of The Three Musketeers, Alexander Dumas... well, we begin with his grandparents actually: A rich white nobleman living in Haiti and an enslaved woman, named Marie-Cesette. Alexander Duma's half-black father has a incredible story of his own - one that led him to glory fighting for France aboard during the Revolution, and earned the ire of none other than Napoleon.00:37:04 - Always feeling in the shadow of his father's greatness, and enduring the rampant racism in Paris himself, Alexander Dumas strived always to be remembered and be loved. Perhaps this is why he had no less than 4 illegitimate children and an estimated 40 mistresses. He attained some fame and wealth -experimented with drugs in a very interesting club with Victor Hugo among others - but ultimately died rather poor in the care of his son. --BREAK--Listen to HIGHTAILING THROUGH HISTORY hosted by Laurel and KT00:41:56 - After the break, we welcome into bed with us The Three Musketeers, D'Artagnan and you, of course - with a quick summary of the swashbuckling tale that has stood the test of time and had some good (and bad) movie versions over the years. 00:55:24 - As the original subject that Kristal assigned Dawn was 'French Literature' they wrap up the conversation with a couple of quick booty calls - one on Victor Hugo, author of Les Miserables. It turns out that the musical had a rather outsized impact on both Kristal and Dawn's youth. 00:59:25 - Dawn wraps up with a tip of the hat to The Marquis de Sade, the man from whom we get the phrase 'sadist' and oh so much more. 01:03:22 - Before extracting herself from Kristal's marital sheets, Dawn leaves her with one last story from the French Revolution - that of the assassination of the bathtub-bound invalid, Jean-Paul Marat at the hands of Charlotte Corday. Not only is it a bloody and interesting story, but it is the inspiration for a play written in the 1970's called: The Persecution and Assassination of Jean-Paul Marat as Performed by the Inmates of the Asylum of Charenton Under the Direction of the Marquis de Sade. I know, right?---Our themesong was composed and performed by (legendary) Kat Perkins @katperkinsmusic. If you want to reach out to HILF, please do! We are on social media @HILFPODCAST, or @DAWN_BRODEY  or you can email us hilfpodcast@gmail.com.

Guy de Maupassant - The Necklace - The Master Of The Short Story At His Best!   Hi, I'm Christy Shriver and we're here to discuss books that have changed the world and have changed us.    I'm Garry Shriver and this is the How to Love Lit Podcast.  Today we are going to journey to France and meet one of the greatest short story writers in the world- he influenced O Henry, Chekov, Kate Chopin and many others- this would be Guy de Maupassant.  And the story we will be reading and discussing is his most famous story, “The Necklace”.    Guy de Maupaussant didn't live very long.  He died right before turning 43, but fortunately during his life he got to enjoy financial success and even fame.  He wrote over 300 stories, six novels, three travel books and a bunch of poetry.      So, let's date him exactly.  He was born in 1850 and died in 1893.  If we put that in historical context in the America's, we were living through the American Civil War.  Europe in general was experiencing the good and bad of the height of the Industrial Revolution(we talked  about that briefly when we talked about Charles Dickens but also William Blake-some of the excesses were pretty terrible and were felt all over Europe), but France in particular under the leadership of Emperor Napoleon 3rd, made great strides to modernization.  France led the world in many ways.  Unfortunately this all came crashing down to some degree with Emperor Napoleon III, reluctantly really, led France into the Franco-Prussian war.  As with every other war, it was an atrocity, although we don't talk about it much today.  Among other things, it changed the landscape of Europe and the. European balance of power from then on.     Yeah, I guess I've heard of the Franco-Prussian war, but I can't say I understand it very well.      This war was between France and what is now primarily what we call Germany.  However, this isn't exactly accurate because our maps have changed so much since those days.  The German confederation led by the Kingdom of Prussia defeated Napoleon III and France's Second Empire. Napoleon the 3rd, would be the last emperor of France. Guy de Maupassant volunteered in that war and pulled from his experiences in the war for a lot of his stories.      I'm sure MauPaussant's war experiences were one big influence and subject of his writing, but certainly not the only one.  De Maupassant observed  all levels of French society starting with prostitutes to soldiers and upward on the social scale.  He was very interested in social struggle and in some ways a little cynical about the whole thing.   A lot of his stories convey a sense of hopelessness really- trying to fight fate.  Which in some ways is interesting in light of the fact that he did financially and professionally well for himself in spite of some very difficult obstables not the least of which is his parents fairly traumatic divorce.  He grew up in Normandy which is in the North of France. His mother filed for and got divorced from his dad for his being a womanizer-     a woman being granted a divorce was unusual for that time.      Well, it was, and Guy was raised by his mom.  He went to Catholic school which apparently wasn't a positive experience, and he orchestrated his own expulsion.  Eventually, he moved to Paris, and his mother introduced him to a man who would be the single greatest influence in his life, outside of his mother, Gustave Flaubert. Flaubert was famous and he was a writer.  His most famous book- Madame Bovary-maybe one of the most infuriating books I've ever read- of course that's intentional.  is beautifully written and admired as a powerful work concerned with human frailty .      Well, Flaubert introduced de Maupassant to other famous writers and off his career started.  He was prolific and well-received.  After a few years, he was able to quit his day job and live off his writing and in a high style.    Yes, amd he apparently inherited his father's taste in women, for he too has been labeled by history as “a womanizer.”  He was single, had many relationships: these included relationships prostitutes all the way to many other women of high rank including countesses.  He even had three children with one lover.  Unfortunatetly, his lifestyle ultimately resulted in his contracting syphilis.  As his syphilis progressed his writing got more and more shocking because he himself was losing his sense of reality.  Eventually he became convinced that flies were devouring his brain.  He tried to shoot himself, then he rammed a paper knife into his throat.  This got him taken to an asylym where he stayed until he died just a few months later.      Wow.  That ending is somewhat shocking.     Well, it truly is and perhaps ironic that a writer so respected for his ability to see real life for what it really was, ended his life without a real notion of reality.      Well, Tolstoy, the Russian writer found him worthy enough of a writer to write a very long and complimentary piece titled “The Works of Guy de Maupassant”.  He claimed that de  MauPaussant could see with his own eyes things as they were, see their meaning, see the contradictions of life, which are hidden from others and vividly present them.      Yes, and that in a nutshell is basically what what he's famous for.  At that time, many writers in France, and this includes Flaubert, de MauPassant's mentor, but also others most notably Emile Zola, were moving away from a romanticized way of writing about the world towards a move gritty realistic way.   The trend was to portray life as it really was- we call this realism.  Of course, we saw this with Ibsen and the theater.  In Ibsen's plays he also  portrayed real life, but Ibsen was working in the theater.  We saw this with Chopin.  But the French were doing this first and most notably in the plastic arts, like painting. One notable and famous early example was a politically controversial artist by the name of Gustave Coubert.  He would paint peasants, which wasn't that big of a deal, but in his work, tney weren't out in some field happily picking wheat.  They were miserable.  He was showing that life was hard—people didn't like that in their paintings.  They wanted the romantized versions showing how beautiful life was., Guy de Maupasasnt was in this vein.  He didn't want to make people or life look like they were better than they really were.  However, de Maupassant wasn't just a realist in the sense that he wanted to portray real life, he extended this idea further into a branch which we call naturalism.  Now, I know I'm throwing out a lot of -isms and that can get boring, but if you understand what these guys were doing it actually makes reading the stories more interesting.  De Maupassant was of the mindset that nature held a very large sway on your agency in the world.  In other words, it's not really possible to pull yourself up by your bootstraps- the powers of this world are going to win.  He saw this in evolutionary terms- This is survival of the fittest type thinking.  The strongest survive, the weakest die and there's not a whole lot you can do about it.  God is not coming to your rescue; there is no prince charming that will swoop down.  Nobody is coming to save you.  John Steinbeck thought like this too and we see that in Of Mice and Men.      That kind of writing is pretty dark.      Well, it certainly can be.  But our story today isn't as dark as Of Mice and Men; no one dies, but we do see that people are what they are, and they are not always good.  They are selfish and often stupid.  Also, they will be products of their environment.  It's not likely that you will rewrite your story to overcome your circumstances- not really- most people will succumb to their environments.  De Maupassant said this about what he wanted to do, He wanted to “write the history of the heart, soul and mind in their normal state.”  His goal was not “telling a story or entertaining us or touching our hearts but at forcing us to think and understand the deeper, hidden meaning of events.”    So, let's do it….this story, “The Necklace” is set in Paris sometime during the 1800s.          She was one of those pretty and charming girls born, as though fate had blundered over her, into a family of artisans. She had no marriage portion, no expectations, no means of getting known, understood, loved, and wedded by a man of wealth and distinction; and she let herself be married off to a little clerk in the Ministry of Education. Her tastes were simple because she had never been able to afford any other, but she was as unhappy as though she had married beneath her; for women have no caste or class, their beauty, grace, and charm serving them for birth or family. their natural delicacy, their instinctive elegance, their nimbleness of wit, are their only mark of rank, and put the slum girl on a level with the highest lady in the land.    De MauPaussant immediately situates our protagonist in the social system of her day. During this period of European history, classes were very stratified.  There was the highest class, there were the peasants, but because of the Industrial Revolution, there was a growing middle class- but even the  middle class was stratified. The woman in this story, is from a family of artisans.  That's one class up from peasants but not prestigious or powerful by any definition.  Artisans work with their hands. Bottom line, our protagonist is born poor; however, because she is so gorgeous she is able to have a little upward mobility.  Her beauty, according to our story “puts the slum girl on a level with the higest lady of the land.”  Her husband, on the other hand, is a bureaucrat- that's better than a bricklayer of other working class people, but certainly not high ranking.      I do notice a little editorializing on the narrator's part in that he comments that women live outside of the class system since they cannot work.  They have only their physical attributes, their elegance and their social smarts as a way to improve their lives, NOT their ability to work for a living.    Indeed, and what makes this girl upset is that she thinks she is better looking and basically better than her husband because she's beautiful.  Her beauty, in her mind, means she DESERVES something in this life.  She deserves luxury, and since he can't provide that, she suffers.  She's tormented use deMaupassant's words.  Let's read how she thought of her life.     She suffered endlessly, feeling herself born for every delicacy and luxury. She suffered from the poorness of her house, from its mean walls, worn chairs, and ugly curtains. All these things, of which other women of her class would not even have been aware, tormented and insulted her. The sight of the little Breton girl who came to do the work in her little house aroused heart-broken regrets and hopeless dreams in her mind. She imagined silent antechambers, heavy with Oriental tapestries, lit by torches in lofty bronze sockets, with two tall footmen in knee-breeches sleeping in large arm-chairs, overcome by the heavy warmth of the stove. She imagined vast saloons hung with antique silks, exquisite pieces of furniture supporting priceless ornaments, and small, charming, perfumed rooms, created just for little parties of intimate friends, men who were famous and sought after, whose homage roused every other woman's envious longings.  When she sat down for dinner at the round table covered with a three-days-old cloth, opposite her husband, who took the cover off the soup-tureen, exclaiming delightedly: "Aha! Scotch broth! What could be better?" she imagined delicate meals, gleaming silver, tapestries peopling the walls with folk of a past age and strange birds in faery forests; she imagined delicate food served in marvellous dishes, murmured gallantries, listened to with an inscrutable smile as one trifled with the rosy flesh of trout or wings of asparagus chicken.  She had no clothes, no jewels, nothing. And these were the only things she loved; she felt that she was made for them. She had longed so eagerly to charm, to be desired, to be wildly attractive and sought after.  She had a rich friend, an old school friend whom she refused to visit, because she suffered so keenly when she returned home. She would weep whole days, with grief, regret, despair, and misery.  It's a very long description describing her “misery.”  It's also a long description of the things she imagines she deserves.  And again, we see our narrator communicating through the subtext that maybe, this woman's perspective does not align with her reality.  She describes how bad her house is..but notice she has a MAID!!!  So, obviously, she is better than some people.  Also, she complains that she doesn't have elegant food over her dinner, so obviously she's not starving.      If you listen to how she behaves it's pitifully over-dramatic.  Listen to the language- it is as if she were in a war zone, but the reality is, she's not as well off as her friend friend from her old school days.  The text states the ONLY thing she loves is clothes and jewels.  She weeps for whole days with grief, regret, despair and misery, but what is she weeping over?  We are set up to question this woman's priorities and perspectives.  One evening her husband came home with an exultant air, holding a large envelope in his hand.  " Here's something for you," he said.  Swiftly she tore the paper and drew out a printed card on which were these words:  "The Minister of Education and Madame Ramponneau request the pleasure of the company of Monsieur and Madame Loisel at the Ministry on the evening of Monday, January the 18th."  Instead of being delighted, as her-husband hoped, she flung the invitation petulantly across the table, murmuring:  "What do you want me to do with this?"  "Why, darling, I thought you'd be pleased. You never go out, and this is a great occasion. I had tremendous trouble to get it. Every one wants one; it's very select, and very few go to the clerks. You'll see all the really big people there."  She looked at him out of furious eyes, and said impatiently: "And what do you suppose I am to wear at such an affair?"  He had not thought about it; he stammered:  "Why, the dress you go to the theatre in. It looks very nice, to me...."  He stopped, stupefied and utterly at a loss when he saw that his wife was beginning to cry. Two large tears ran slowly down from the corners of her eyes towards the corners of her mouth.  "What's the matter with you? What's the matter with you?" he faltered.  But with a violent effort she overcame her grief and replied in a calm voice, wiping her wet cheeks:  "Nothing. Only I haven't a dress and so I can't go to this party. Give your invitation to some friend of yours whose wife will be turned out better than I shall."  He was heart-broken.  "Look here, Mathilde," he persisted. :What would be the cost of a suitable dress, which you could use on other occasions as well, something very simple?"  She thought for several seconds, reckoning up prices and also wondering for how large a sum she could ask without bringing upon herself an immediate refusal and an exclamation of horror from the careful-minded clerk.  At last she replied with some hesitation:  "I don't know exactly, but I think I could do it on four hundred francs."  He grew slightly pale, for this was exactly the amount he had been saving for a gun, intending to get a little shooting next summer on the plain of Nanterre with some friends who went lark-shooting there on Sundays.  Nevertheless he said: "Very well. I'll give you four hundred francs. But try and get a really nice dress with the money."    Again, the focus of our story is Madame Mathilde Loisel.  Her husband, so proud of himself, has scored for his miserable and despairing wife a very impressive and selective invitation to go to a ball, an event for elite people.  She weeps for days because she doesn't have a certain life, and he's finally found something he thinks his wife will appreciate.   What follows is a dialogue between the two where we see Mathilde very obviously condescend to and degrade her husband. She also manipulates him to get something she wants.  She says this,    Only I haven't a dress and so I can't go to this party. Give your invitation to some friend of yours whose wife will be turned out better than I shall."  He was heart-broken.    In other words, give this invitation that you think I'll like to a better man than you.  Find a bigger man who can take care of his wife better than you can take care of yours.  This is passive aggressive and accusasatory and it  has the desired effect.  She breaks his heart.  He wants to know how much it would cost to satisfy her, and we notice that she takes her time before responding.  She asks for exactly the amount he has set aside for a hunting trip- we aren't told this is a coincidence, but we have been led to believe this is a self-centered manipulative woman.  He gives her the whole thing.        The day of the party drew near, and Madame Loisel seemed sad, uneasy and anxious. Her dress was ready, however. One evening her husband said to her:  "What's the matter with you? You've been very odd for the last three days."  "I'm utterly miserable at not having any jewels, not a single stone, to wear," she replied. "I shall look absolutely no one. I would almost rather not go to the party."    Again- the hyperbolic language demonstrates her total contempt and ingratitude for her husband.  She's miserable because she doesn't have jewels.  Remember- clothes and jewels are the only things she loves. She's humiliated, and she looks to her husband to problem-solve for her.   He's going to recommend she go see her rich friend- which she does.      "Wear flowers," he said. "They're very smart at this time of the year. For ten francs you could get two or three gorgeous roses."  She was not convinced.  "No . . . there's nothing so humiliating as looking poor in the middle of a lot of rich women."  "How stupid you are!" exclaimed her husband. "Go and see Madame Forestier and ask her to lend you some jewels. You know her quite well enough for that."  She uttered a cry of delight.  "That's true. I never thought of it."  Next day she went to see her friend and told her her trouble.  Madame Forestier went to her dressing-table, took up a large box, brought it to Madame Loisel, opened it, and said:  "Choose, my dear."  First she saw some bracelets, then a pearl necklace, then a Venetian cross in gold and gems, of exquisite workmanship. She tried the effect of the jewels before the mirror, hesitating, unable to make up her mind to leave them, to give them up. She kept on asking:  "Haven't you anything else?"  "Yes. Look for yourself. I don't know what you would like best."  Suddenly she discovered, in a black satin case, a superb diamond necklace; her heart began to beat covetousIy. Her hands trembled as she lifted it. She fastened it round her neck, upon her high dress, and remained in ecstasy at sight of herself.  Then, with hesitation, she asked in anguish:  "Could you lend me this, just this alone?"  "Yes, of course."  She flung herself on her friend's breast, embraced her frenziedly, and went away with her treasure.    Again notice the words, her heart beats “covetously”.  Her hands tremble.  She's in ecstacy.  She embraces her friend in a frenzy.      The day of the party arrived. Madame Loisel was a success. She was the prettiest woman present, elegant, graceful, smiling, and quite above herself with happiness. All the men stared at her, inquired her name, and asked to be introduced to her. All the Under-Secretaries of State were eager to waltz with her. The Minister noticed her.  She danced madly, ecstatically, drunk with pleasure, with no thought for anything, in the triumph of her beauty, in the pride of her success, in a cloud of happiness made up of this universal homage and admiration, of the desires she had aroused, of the completeness of a victory so dear to her feminine heart.    What is interesting about this account of the party is that it's so short.  Her delusions of gradeur at the beginning were described in more words.  She's a hit.  She's the most beautiful woman there and by far.  All the men want to dance with her.  The Minister himself notices her.  She is “drunk with pleasure”.  All she thinks about is her triumph, her success the “universal homage and admiration”. Her presence at the ball is a complete victory.  In other words, she gets everything she wanted.  Except, it only lasts two short paragraphs.     She left about four o'clock in the morning. Since midnight her husband had been dozing in a deserted little room, in company with three other men whose wives were having a good time. He threw over her shoulders the garments he had brought for them to go home in, modest everyday clothes, whose poverty clashed with the beauty of the ball-dress. She was conscious of this and was anxious to hurry away, so that she should not be noticed by the other women putting on their costly furs.  Loisel restrained her.  "Wait a little. You'll catch cold in the open. I'm going to fetch a cab."  But she did not listen to him and rapidly descended-the staircase. When they were out in the street they could not find a cab; they began to look for one, shouting at the drivers whom they saw passing in the distance.  They walked down towards the Seine, desperate and shivering. At last they found on the quay one of those old nightprowling carriages which are only to be seen in Paris after dark, as though they were ashamed of their shabbiness in the daylight.    Notice how much attention is paid to the fact that she's ashamed.  This paragraph is just as long as the entire party.  She races out the door because she's ashamed of her coat.  Her husband literally tries to restrain her, but she's in a rush.  She shouts, she walks, she's out pacing in the streets ashamed of her “shabbiness.”    It brought them to their door in the Rue des Martyrs, and sadly they walked up to their own apartment. It was the end, for her. As for him, he was thinking that he must be at the office at ten.  She took off the garments in which she had wrapped her shoulders, so as to see herself in all her glory before the mirror. But suddenly she uttered a cry. The necklace was no longer round her neck!  "What's the matter with you?" asked her husband, already half undressed.  She turned towards him in the utmost distress.  "I . . . I . . . I've no longer got Madame Forestier's necklace. . . ."  He started with astonishment.  "What! . . . Impossible!"  They searched in the folds of her dress, in the folds of the coat, in the pockets, everywhere. They could not find it.  "Are you sure that you still had it on when you came away from the ball?" he asked.  "Yes, I touched it in the hall at the Ministry."  "But if you had lost it in the street, we should have heard it fall."  "Yes. Probably we should. Did you take the number of the cab?"  "No. You didn't notice it, did you?"  "No."  They stared at one another, dumbfounded. At last Loisel put on his clothes again.  "I'll go over all the ground we walked," he said, "and see if I can't find it."  And he went out. She remained in her evening clothes, lacking strength to get into bed, huddled on a chair, without volition or power of thought.  Her husband returned about seven. He had found nothing.  He went to the police station, to the newspapers, to offer a reward, to the cab companies, everywhere that a ray of hope impelled him.    Notice the juxtaposition here- after the necklace is lost, the husband takes the initiative to look for it.  He looks for it until 7am.  Matilde lays in bed.  He walks, he goes to the police, he goes to the newspapers, he offers a reward.  She does nothing.    She waited all day long, in the same state of bewilderment at this fearful catastrophe.  Loisel came home at night, his face lined and pale; he had discovered nothing.  "You must write to your friend," he said, "and tell her that you've broken the clasp of her necklace and are getting it mended. That will give us time to look about us."  She wrote at his dictation.    By the end of a week they had lost all hope.  Loisel, who had aged five years, declared:  "We must see about replacing the diamonds."  Next day they took the box which had held the necklace and went to the jewellers whose name was inside. He consulted his books.  "It was not I who sold this necklace, Madame; I must have merely supplied the clasp."  Then they went from jeweller to jeweller, searching for another necklace like the first, consulting their memories, both ill with remorse and anguish of mind.  In a shop at the Palais-Royal they found a string of diamonds which seemed to them exactly like the one they were looking for. It was worth forty thousand francs. They were allowed to have it for thirty-six thousand.  They begged the jeweller not to sell it for three days. And they arranged matters on the understanding that it would be taken back for thirty-four thousand francs, if the first one were found before the end of February.  Loisel possessed eighteen thousand francs left to him by his father. He intended to borrow the rest.  He did borrow it, getting a thousand from one man, five hundred from another, five louis here, three louis there. He gave notes of hand, entered into ruinous agreements, did business with usurers and the whole tribe of money-lenders. He mortgaged the whole remaining years of his existence, risked his signature without even knowing it he could honour it, and, appalled at the agonising face of the future, at the black misery about to fall upon him, at the prospect of every possible physical privation and moral torture, he went to get the new necklace and put down upon the jeweller's counter thirty-six thousand francs.    By this point in the story, no one should have any respect for Matilde.  She has done nothing for herself.  We even find out that he has a pretty good inheritance from his father, and he spends the entirety of it to partially pay for this necklace his wife lost.  Listen to the language, he is appalled at the agonizing face of the future, at the lack misery about to fall upon him, at the prospect of every possible physical privation and moral torture….it's very inflated language- in fact, the sentence structure and contrasts very obviously with the language used to describe Matilde  in all of her glory.  The inflated misery will be as inflated as her momentary glory- except it will last into the infinite future.    This stands out!  His misery is undeserved.  Her short-lived fabricated glory is undeserved.  He is grounded in his own reality; she does nothing to fix her problem; it is his to solve.      When Madame Loisel took back the necklace to Madame Forestier, the latter said to her in a chilly voice:  "You ought to have brought it back sooner; I might have needed it."  She did not, as her friend had feared, open the case. If she had noticed the substitution, what would she have thought? What would she have said? Would she not have taken her for a thief?  ***  Madame Loisel came to know the ghastly life of abject poverty.   From the very first she played her part heroically. This fearful debt must be paid off. She would pay it. The servant was dismissed. They changed their flat; they took a garret under the roof.  She came to know the heavy work of the house, the hateful duties of the kitchen. She washed the plates, wearing out her pink nails on the coarse pottery and the bottoms of pans. She washed the dirty linen, the shirts and dish-cloths, and hung them out to dry on a string; every morning she took the dustbin down into the street and carried up the water, stopping on each landing to get her breath. And, clad like a poor woman, she went to the fruiterer, to the grocer, to the butcher, a basket on her arm, haggling, insulted, fighting for every wretched halfpenny of her money.  Every month notes had to be paid off, others renewed, time gained.  Her husband worked in the evenings at putting straight a merchant's accounts, and often at night he did copying at twopence-halfpenny a page.  And this life lasted ten years.    At the beginning of the story, we see that she thought she was poor.  Now, she has come to know what real poverty looks like.  Now she is “glad like a poor woman.”    At the end of ten years everything was paid off, everything, the usurer's charges and the accumulation of superimposed interest.  Madame Loisel looked old now. She had become like all the other strong, hard, coarse women of poor households. Her hair was badly done, her skirts were awry, her hands were red. She spoke in a shrill voice, and the water slopped all over the floor when she scrubbed it. But sometimes, when her husband was at the office, she sat down by the window and thought of that evening long ago, of the ball at which she had been so beautiful and so much admired.    If you remember, this is how she started.  She was pretty but she was poor.  Now she's poor and ugly, like everyone else who she thought she was better than. Even her dillusions have stopped.  All she has is the memory of her one moment of glory.     What would have happened if she had never lost those jewels. Who knows? Who knows? How strange life is, how fickle! How little is needed to ruin or to save!  One Sunday, as she had gone for a walk along the Champs-Elysees to freshen herself after the labours of the week, she caught sight suddenly of a woman who was taking a child out for a walk. It was Madame Forestier, still young, still beautiful, still attractive.  Madame Loisel was conscious of some emotion. Should she speak to her? Yes, certainly. And now that she had paid, she would tell her all. Why not?  She went up to her.  "Good morning, Jeanne."  The other did not recognise her, and was surprised at being thus familiarly addressed by a poor woman.  "But . . . Madame . . ." she stammered. "I don't know . . . you must be making a mistake."  "No . . . I am Mathilde Loisel."  Her friend uttered a cry.  "Oh! . . . my poor Mathilde, how you have changed! . . ."  "Yes, I've had some hard times since I saw you last; and many sorrows . . . and all on your account."  "On my account! . . . How was that?"  "You remember the diamond necklace you lent me for the ball at the Ministry?"  "Yes. Well?"  "Well, I lost it."  "How could you? Why, you brought it back."  "I brought you another one just like it. And for the last ten years we have been paying for it. You realise it wasn't easy for us; we had no money. . . . Well, it's paid for at last, and I'm glad indeed."  Madame Forestier had halted.  "You say you bought a diamond necklace to replace mine?"  "Yes. You hadn't noticed it? They were very much alike."  And she smiled in proud and innocent happiness.  Madame Forestier, deeply moved, took her two hands.  "Oh, my poor Mathilde! But mine was imitation. It was worth at the very most five hundred francs! . . .     And of course the irony.  If you remember, irony is when things are opposite.  Here we have situational irony.  The situation is the opposite of what we should have expected.  And the story ends with an ellipsis…what happens next has no consequence.  The self-delusion, the self-serving nature, the lack of agency, all of it…was it her destiny, was it her personality, was it her society, de Maupassant ends with an ellipsis, but he has led us to his conclusion.      If we go back to the essay Tolstoy wrote about Guy de Maupassant, this is what he had to say,    There has hardly been another such an author, who thought so sincerely that all the good, the whole meaning of life was in woman, in love, and who with such force of passion described woman and the love of her from all sides, and there has hardly been another author, who with such clearness and precision has pointed out all the terrible sides of the same phenomenon, which to him seemed to be the highest, and one that gives the greatest good to men. The more he comprehended this phenomenon, the more did it become unveiled; the shrouds fell off, and all there was left was its terrible consequences and its still more terrible reality.- Tolstoy    Oh, I feel like for me to comment here would be swimming in dangerous waters.    HA!  Yes, it seems that Guy de Maupassant loved women passionately in every way until the day he died, but he was a realist; he was a naturalist.  Humanity is what it is- both men and women are equally human, and he felt no need to romanticize our essence.  It's kind of refreshing, really.     Well, we hope you enjoyed this very famous short story by one of our world's greatest writers of short stories.  Thank you for being with us today.  If you enjoy our work, please like us on social media.  Give us a review on your podcast app, but most importantly share our podcast with a friend.  That's how we grow.    Peace out!       

In this penultimate episode of Arthro-Pod's 6 part series on the history of insects defeating Napoleon, we travel to Russia! Over the last four episodes, we've discussed the French Revolution and Napoleon's rise to power, the French invasion of Egypt and their encounter with plague, and the Haitian Revolution and crushing defeats the British and French faced due in large part to yellow fever. Now, hear this one on the effects of typhus on Emperor Napoleon's campaigns near Russia and how he was thwarted by bugs and perhaps a little hubris! Napoleon leads his troops during the Battle of Austerlitz, which is often regarded as the finest military victory of his career. "The Battle of Austerlitz, 2nd December 1805", 1810, by François Gérard. Via wikimedia, in the public domain. Napoleon reviews his troops before the Battle of Jena. "Bataille d'Iéna. 14 octobre 1806", 1836, by Jorace Vernet. Via wikimedia, in the public domain.Execution of Spanish resistance by French forces during the Peninsular War. "The Third of May 1808", 1810, by Francisco Goya. Via wikimedia, in the public domain.Napoleon as he appeared in 1812 before his defeat in Russia. "The Emperor Napoleon in His Study at the Tuileries ", 1812, by Jacques-Louis David. Via wikimedia, in the public domain.Heavy 12 pound cannon being serviced by two French Guard Foot. Artist unknown, 1808. Via wikimedia, in the public domain.The French Empire  at it's greatest extent in 1812. Dark green areas were under direct control of France while light green areas were client states. By TRAJAN 117, via wikimedia, used under a CC BY-SA 3.0 license."Napoleon's retreat from Moscow", 1851, by Adolph Northen. Via wikimedia, in the public domain.Retreat of the French Grand Army from Moscow, intercepted by Russian Cossack, 1812. 1813, by Edwd Orm. Via wikimedia, in the public domain.Marshal Michel Ney, who begged Napoleon to commit the Imperial Guard during the Battle of Borodino and saved the western bridgehead, and so Napoleon and what remained of the French army, during the Battle of Berezina. "Marshal Michel Ney, duc d'Elchingen, prince de la Moskova", circa 1805, by François Gérard. Via wikimedia, in the public domain. Attrition in the French Grande Armeé during the 1812 invasion of Russia. While the popular focus is often on the death and privation during the winter retreat, the chart clearly shows how the army was severely weakened even before reaching Moscow. Width of the colored areas the chart correspond to troop strength (1 mm = 10,000 troops). Geographic distance is shown by the scale in the center right ("lieues communes de France" = common French league) =  4444 m  or 2.75 miles). Temperatures (in Réaumur scale) on the bottom of the chart correspond to the black line of retreat. (multiply Réaumur temperatures by 1¼ to get Celsius, e.g. -19 °R at Smolensk = -23.75 °C = -10.75 °F). By Charles Minard, 1869. Via wikimedia, in the public domain.Human louse, the vector of epidemic typhus and trench fever. Photo by Gilles San Martin. Via wikimedia, used under a CC BY-SA 2.0 license.Macular rash caused by epidemic typhus. Illustration by George Jochmann, 1914. Via wikimedia, used under a CC BY-SA 4.0 license.Questions? Comments? Follow the show on Twitter @Arthro_PodshowFollow the hosts on Twitter @bugmanjon, @JodyBugsmeUNL, and @MSkvarla36Get the show through Apple Podcasts!Subscribe to our feed on Feedburner!  We're also on Stitcher!This episode is freely available on archive.org and is licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

This week in an unedited special episode Hazel and Rachel explore how to show love in a long distance relationship. Hazel digs into the often one-sided love affair of Emperor Napoleon and his wife Josephine. Rachel explores the softer side of General and President Ulysses S. Grant. Long distance can be hard but if you put in the effort sometimes the other person will be into it?

Sophie (age 7) & Ellie (age 5) tell how Napoleon came to power and how his armies were victorious all over Europe.----more---- Napoleon sails to Egypt. He wins a great battle in the shadow of the Pyramids. But Nelson destroys the French fleet, stranding the French in Egypt. Napoleon hears that the French government are losing battles at home. He abandons his army and sails for France. Back in France he takes control and makes himself ruler of France. Like Hannibal before him he crossed the Alps and then crushes the Austrians in battle. He gives France new laws called the Code Napoleon. But the supporters of the old King still believe that if he were to die then the old King’s family could return. Napoleon decides to crown himself Emperor so they realise that they time of the Kings is over. Europe is outraged. Three years of fighting ensues. Napoleon has spent several years with his army by the English Channel preparing to invade Britain. But Nelson destroys the French fleet. By this time Napoleon’s army is well trained. He marches it inland and surrounds the Austrian army. They surrender and he then chases after the Russian army. They meet at the Battle of Austerlitz. Napoleon gains a famous victory. Now Napoleon turns his attention to the famed, disciplined Prussian Army. He crushes them too. He chases into Poland after their Russian allies. He fights them to a bloody draw at the Battle of Eylau. We tell the story of the battle and how Napoleon’s solders walk into a snowstorm before his cavalry save the day. Later in the Spring, Napoleon defeats the Russians again. This time the Russians have had enough. Napoleon and the Tsar meet on a raft and agree peace. Napoleon now rules most of Europe. But all is not well. Europe does now want to be ruled by Napoleon. Britain lies unconquered. Napoleon still has not got an heir. Napoleon is never satisfied with a victory. He always wants more. Next week we will tell the final part of this series in which we learn about the fall of Napoleon. PATRONS’ CLUB If you like this episode then please consider joining our Patrons’ Club. We have exclusive episodes there and that includes and episode called Napoleon and Josephine. We tell the story of Napoleon and Josephine's love and marriage. It’s a great companion episode to this one. OTHER NAPOLEONIC EPISODES We also have other Napoleonic episodes. This is the second in our series on Napoleon. Our first episode was on the young Napoleon. The Young Napoleon Bonaparte (historystorytime.com) We have also made an episode all about the Battle of Waterloo. Napoleon and the Battle of Waterloo (historystorytime.com) Next week we will be talking about the fall of Napoleon.

*insert Keanu's "gosh I love movies!" meme here* (Recorded November 2020)Ryan Murphy’s AHS spinoff seriesAmerican Horror Story, Ratched & Six Feet UnderWandaVision release date set for Jan. 15th, 2021“I Love Dick” tv show, Marfa, TX & the glory of Kathryn Hahn“The Shrink Next Door” - new project with Paul Rudd/Will FerrellThe Wizard of Oz (1925), Aladdin (1992), Toy Story (1995), Jumanji (1995), The Land Before Time (1988)Jurassic Park (1993) - plus the tours you can go on in Hawaii & That Laura Dern sceneTitanic (1997), Paramount Studios in Hollywood, CA & Ed Debevic's restaurant (RIP)The Laemmle on 2nd Street in Santa Monica, CAPolish Wedding (1998), Brokeback Mountain (2005)Forrest Gump (1994), Fried Green Tomatoes (1991), Erin Brokovich (2000)Baz Luhrmann (again!) - Moulin Rouge (2001), Strictly Ballroom (1992) and Romeo + Juliet (1996)The Alliance Theater in Atlanta, GeorgiaBroadway shows: Wicked, See What I Want to See, Beauty and the Beast, The Phantom of the Opera, Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat (1999 film with Donny Osmond), CATS, Sunset Boulevard (based on the 1950 film by Billy Wilder), Starlight ExpressThe Adderley School for the Performing ArtsIdina MenzelThe Notebook (2004), A Walk to Remember (2004 film & 1999 novel)Rebel Without A Cause (1955)Movie Gallery & Blockbuster VideoAlmost Famous (2000) - yes, AGAIN - & Big Fish (2003)Clue (1985)Billy Crudup in The Morning Show on Apple TV+The Beatles Anthology documentary seriesHome Alone (1990)Problematic former favesChildhood bedrooms & Caitlin’s Godfather/Beauty and the Beast crossoverThe Peacemaker (1997) - Mimi Leder, Nicole Kidman & Julia RobertsPirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003)The historical movie theaters in Westwood Village - Westwood, CADreamgirls (2006)Star Wars: The Force Awakens (2015) & The Phantom Menace (1999)The prequels were good.Christopher John Rogers, designer. (Beyonce's dress in Vogue!)2021 Inauguration Fashion ideas (BRIT WAS RIGHT - OMG!)Mispronouncing LA & NY placesCaitlin’s museum rant: MOMA, The Met, “Starry Night” by Van Gogh, The Louvre, The Musée d'Orsay, visible storage, and the painting “The Consecration of the Emperor Napoleon and the Coronation of Empress Joséphine on December 2, 1804” by Jacques Louis David & an extreme oversimplification of art history and the impressionist movementHow to pronounce Van Gogh.As usual, sorry if you hear Caitlin typing - she's taking notes!

Audio Transcript: This media has been made available by Mosaic Boston Church. If you like to check out more resources, learn about Mosaic Boston and our neighborhood churches or donate to this ministry, please visit mosaicboston.com.Please pray with me over the preaching of God's Word. Heavenly Father, we thank you that you sent your son Jesus Christ to be amongst us to live a human life. We thank you, Jesus, that you promised that you will build your church and the gates of hell will not overcome it. Pray today, show us from the holy Scriptures of how you build the church, what the building blocks of your church are, what the basics are, what the fundamentals are, and make us a people who are focused on the fundamentals of proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ to those who don't know you, calling people to repentance as we repent ourselves.Remind us that we are called to make disciples who make disciples, that we are to commit our lives to that, orient our lives around the great commission, and remind us that we are to serve people in deed and in word. Send us the Holy Spirit to speak to us to prepare our hearts, our minds, and our wills to continue to live for the glory of God. We pray this, in Jesus' name. Amen. If you're new, we are in the Gospel of Matthew for the foreseeable future, but probably until Easter. Next week, we're starting the greatest sermon that has ever been preached.We'll expose it through that. It's the Sermon on the Mount preached by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as he just called his disciples. Today, the text right before the Sermon on the Mount, we see Jesus Christ making disciples. This is how Jesus Christ transformed the world. The most influential person in the history of the world was Jesus Christ. We know that, and that's to be expected because he's the God man. If God comes, becomes a person who lives amongst us, obviously, he's going to be the most influential person who ever lived. That's not a miracle.We understand that. What is a miracle? Is that after Jesus Christ leaves, the church grows, the church grows, so much so that the church transforms the world. This morning, millions, dare I say, billions of people are worshiping Jesus Christ around the world. He transformed the world, not just through his own work, but through the work of his followers by the power of the Spirit. One of my favorite quotes about the radical influence of Jesus Christ in the world is by the Emperor Napoleon who, at the end of his life in exile, he came to the following conclusion about the King of kings.He said, "I know man and I tell you, Jesus Christ is not a man. Superficial mind see a resemblance between Christ and the founders of empires and the gods of other religions. That resemblance does not exist. There is between Christianity and other religions the distance of infinity. Alexander, Caesar, Charlemagne, and myself founded empires. On what did we rest? On what did we rest the creations of our genius upon sheer force? Jesus Christ alone founded his empire upon love." At this hour, millions of men will die for him.Every other existence, but that of Christ, how many imperfections? From the first day to the last, he is the same, majestic and simple, infinitely firm and infinitely gentle. He proposes to our faith, a series of mysteries and commands with authority that we should believe them, giving no other reason than those tremendous words, I am God. Clearly, Jesus influenced the world, changed the world, transformed the world. The greater miracle is, how did his followers do it? How do we, today, continue to do it?How do we bring that radical life transforming force into the lives of our neighbors, our friends, our colleagues, into the lives of the people in this city and beyond? That's what we're going to talk about today. Matthew 4:12 through 25, would you look at the text with me? Now when he heard that John had been arrested, he withdrew into Galilee. Leaving Nazareth, he went and lived in Capernaum by the sea, in the territory of Zebulun and Naphtali, so that what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled.The land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, the way of the city, beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles. The people dwelling in darkness have seen a great light, for those dwelling in the region and shadow of death, on them a light has dawned. From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." While walking by the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers, Simon (who is called Peter) and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea, for they were fishermen. He said to them, "Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men."Immediately they left their nets and followed him. Going on from there he saw two brothers, James the son of Zebedee and John his brother, in the boat with Zebedee their father, mending their nets, and he called them. Immediately they left the boat and their father and followed him. He went throughout all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease and every affliction among the people.His name spread throughout all Syria, and they brought him all the sick, those afflicted with various diseases and pains, those oppressed by demons, epileptics, paralytics, and he healed them. Great crowds followed him from Galilee and the Decapolis, and from Jerusalem and Judea, and from beyond the Jordan. This is the reading of God's holy, inerrant, infallible, authoritative word. May write these eternal truths upon our hearts. Three points to frame of our time. First, repent and preach the gospel. Second, follow Jesus and make disciples.Third, serve people in word and deed, the basics, the fundamentals of Christianity, of our faith. All too often, we complicate things in life, including our own faith. We forget about the basics, the fundamentals on which everything is built. Even professionals in sports, they need to get back to the fundamentals every once in a while. That's why you need spring training for baseball. That's why you need a preseason in football. We didn't get a preseason this year in the NFL, and that's why the Patriots stunk. That's the only excuse. That's the only reason.Tom Brady had nothing to do with it. We're going to get back to the fundamentals. Last week, I had to write a check. First of all, I haven't written a check in months, maybe a year. I had to write a check. I had to go find the checkbook. I had to find the payment. I take the pen and I start writing. I realized, I haven't written with my hand in a very long time. It felt foreign. It felt like, what am I doing? I don't even know how to write. I feel like I'm in kindergarten. I feel like my daughter, Milana, has better writing than I am. Get about the fundamentals. We need the fundamentals.We need the fundamentals in the Christian faith. That's why we need this text, which is the text preceding the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus here makes disciples and then he teaches his disciples. We need to learn how to make disciples, just like Jesus did. The first point is repent and preach the gospel. Some time has elapsed between verse 11 and verse 12. Verse 11, Jesus Christ was in the desert and he was getting tempted by the evil one. He resisted the evil one. The angels then came and ministered to him, most likely with food. Some time passes between verses 11 and 12.Jesus continues his ministry in Judea, Jerusalem, concurrently with John the Baptizer, whose ministries reported in the Gospel of John. Then in Matthew 4:12, it says, now when he heard that John had been arrested, he withdrew into Galilee. John, who? This is John, Jesus' beloved cousin, who was only six months older than Jesus. John's ministry was predicted in the book of Isaiah, seven years before he was born. In the book of Malachi, 500 years before he's born. Centuries before, prophesied. He will come.He will prepare the way for the Lord by proclaiming the gospel, the gospel of repentance. Then his ministry lasts only 18 months. Fascinating. It's kind of weird point. I've been meditating on this week. We never know how much longer God will give us. Yes, in our lives, but also in our ministry. John serves and he serves and he serves. It's grace of God to be used by God. Whenever we get tired of ministry, tired of serving God, we can never forget that it's a gift to be used by God. That gift can be taken away at any moment, just like it was with John.What happened with John, he was arrested. What was he arrested for? He was arrested for speaking truth to power, not just truth to power, we hear that phrase all the time. God's truth to power, truth about morality to power. He spoke to King Herod and he said, "No, it is not right for you to take your brother's wife." He speaks God's moral truth to those in politics, to those in influence, which obviously destroys the argument that says, no, no, no, you can't talk moral truth to non-Christians. Moral truth, the 10 commandments only has to do with Christians.No, it's God's law for everybody. God is king over everybody. John the Baptizer, he speaks truth, God's truth to power. He's beheaded. First arrested, then beheaded. As Jesus learns that John has been arrested, he withdrew to Galilee. He goes to Galilee. Galilee was a very important place because it was a crossroads. There are lots of roads going through Galilee. Judea, one commentator said, is on the road to nowhere, Galilee is on the way to everywhere. Jesus chooses a place to do ministry, started his ministry, a place where people come and go, a place of transfer of ideas.He doesn't go to Jerusalem, which is to be expected. He defies expectation and goes to a place where people come and go. In Verse 13, leaving Nazareth, that's his hometown, he went and lived in Capernaum by the sea, in the territory of Zebulun and Naphtali. Nazareth, small, insignificant town, Capernaum, which is part of the Sea of Galilee, bustling town, sea in the region of Galilee. That's where he goes. Why did he leave Nazareth? He leaves Nazareth because he was rejected in his hometown.In Luke Chapter 4, it's recorded that he preaches in the synagogue, takes the scroll of Isaiah, and says, today, this prophecy is fulfilled in your midst. They pick him up and then carry him to the edge of a cliff and they want to kill him for proclaiming himself to be the Messiah. Did Jesus have a hard time doing evangelism? Yeah. Jesus had a hard time doing evangelism in his hometown. No one believed him. He then goes to Capernaum, spend significant amount of time in Capernaum. It becomes his home base, base of operations.Then by Matthew 11, Jesus brings down a woe on Capernaum, woe on you, Capernaum, woe on you, Chorazin. For if the work is done and you had been done in Sodom and Gomorrah, they would have believed and repented a long time ago. They rejected him as well. He brings the light. They reject the light, because it doesn't matter how great the light if you're blind. That's what the people were, blinded by their own sin, by their own pride, by their own selfishness, and rejected the Messiah. Matthew 4:14, so that what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled.He goes to Galilee, Zebulun, Naphtali. He goes not because King Herod had arrested John, but because Jesus need to fulfill the prophecy. In verse 15, the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, the way of the sea, beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles, The people dwelling in darkness have seen a great light, for those dwelling in the region and shadow of death, on them a light has dawned. From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is here." Zebulun and Naphtali, the 2 of the 12 tribes of Israel, they're the smaller tribes.They were given land that was farther away from Jerusalem. That's why it's called Galilee of the Gentiles, because it had a mixed population of Jews and Gentiles. Because of the mixture of Jews and Gentiles, people from Jerusalem looked down on people from Galilee. Once again, the Lord is choosing to associate himself with the lowly, the despised, not the high, not the mighty. He goes to a place where it's absolutely clear that the Messiah is the Messiah, not just for the Jews. God has sent the Savior not just for one ethnicity, but for absolutely everybody.Every single person alive, no matter your ethnicity, no matter your skin color, no matter your country of origin, no matter your socioeconomic status, no matter where you're from, who you are, what you've done, we all need. Jesus. Doesn't matter if you're from the United States, you need Jesus. Doesn't matter if you're from Canada, you definitely need Jesus. Doesn't matter if you're from Russia, you definitely need Jesus. Everybody needs Jesus Christ. This is the point of him going to Galilee, not Jerusalem. Jesus hasn't come as a Messiah just for the Jews.He's come as a Messiah, as a King of the world. This is what Matthew was telling us, the magi coming, the magi of the Gentiles. They're coming to worship the king. This is why Matthew ends with the great commission, the last verses of the book, go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Jesus Christ is the light. He is the Savior. He's come to seek and save that which is lost, the light that shines in the darkness. How does Jesus Christ shine the light? This shows us how do we shine the light into our world.How can we shine the light of Christ? We are the salt. We are the light. How do we shine the light? That's a tremendous question. I'm glad you asked. Jesus answers that in verse 17. This is how he shines the light. From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." You hear that and you're like, that doesn't sound very lightful. That doesn't sound like full of light. A message of repentance. Well, it is because sin is darkness. Sin pulls us away from the source of light, which is God. Proclaiming this gospel of, hey, you can repent.You can return to God is a message of light. This message sounds familiar. Who else preached this message? John the Baptizer, Matthew 3:1 through 3. In those days John the Baptist came preaching in the wilderness of Judea, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." Verbatim. For this is he who was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah when he said, "The voice of one crying in the wilderness: Prepare the way of the Lord; make his paths straight." John the Baptizer preached this message. Jesus preached this message.Jesus, when he sent His disciples on the first preaching tour, told them, Matthew 10:17, proclaim as you go, saying, "The kingdom of heaven is at hand." Meaning the king is here, therefore repent. St. Peter, this is after Jesus' ascension, on the day of Pentecost, as he's filled the Holy Spirit, proclaims the gospel, preaches a powerful sermon, that people are deeply affected, and they cry out, "What shall we do?" This is what Peter said in Acts 2:38, Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.You will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself. St. Paul, speaking to the elders in Ephesus after finishing his ministry there, he said, he summarizes the ministry by saying, in Acts 20:21, testifying both to Jews and Greeks of repentance toward God and of faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. Later in his defense before Agrippa, Paul summarized his preaching in Acts 26:20, but declared first to those in Damascus, then in Jerusalem, throughout all the region of Judea, and also to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, performing deeds in keeping with their repentance.Performing deeds with keeping with their repentance, fascinating. Because many of us, when we think of the gospel, we think I repent, I believe in Jesus Christ, period. I'm saved. That's it. I don't have to do anything. St. Paul preached, no, are you bringing deeds, performing deeds keeping with your repentance? John the Baptist preached the same thing. Matthew 3:8, bear fruit in keeping with repentance. Bear fruit in keeping with repentance. That's fascinating. He's saying prove that you're saved, prove that you have repented. Make your election and calling sure says St. Peter.Prove it. This is why we don't do ... You know how some churches do? By the way, this is how I think I got saved. I don't know. We don't do the walking down the aisle thing. Raise your hand if you're from a church where they did the walking down the aisle if you want to get saved. You know what I'm talking about it. I went to a youth conference at 13 and they said, "This is how you get saved." By the way, Russians, they know how to manipulate. They had a girl with a violin and there was someone playing in Oregon.They're singing a song about like, what's going to happen if you die today? Are you really going to go to hell? I'm like, ah, I don't want to go to hell, 13, and I walked down the aisle like, I'm saved, I'm saved. I walked down with my best friend. We walked down together. Afterwards, I'm like, "How do you feel, man?" He's like, "I feel saved." I was like, "I feel saved too, man. That's great." We don't do that. We don't do that. You know what I say? When someone's like, "I think I've trusted in Jesus," I'm like, "We'll see." We'll see.A week will pass, two weeks will pass, are you growing in the faith? Are you bearing fruit with repentance? Tremendous. Do you believe in Jesus Christ? We need to see some kind of track record, if you're saved by the Savior. This is how Jesus Christ talks about repentance, that there is transformation. We repent and believe in the Gospel because the kingdom is at hand, meaning the king is now the one whom you follow. There's life change. The centrality of repentance also stated negatively by Jesus in Matthew 11:20 through 21.Then he began to denounce the cities where most of his mighty works had been done, because they did not repent. Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. Meaning if you do not repent, there are consequences. Matthew 12:41, the men of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, something greater than Jonah is here.A lot of people misunderstand repentance. They think repentance is either remorse or reformation. I will submit to you that it's not just remorse and it's not just reformation, it's actually returning to God. A lot of people think repentance is remorse, that you feel sorry, you feel deeply sorry for your sin, most likely, because you're sorry of the consequences of your sin. There are consequences. A lot of people think it's just self-reproach, it's self-loathing. This is what Martin Luther, before finally reading the book of Romans and seeing the gospel in the book of Romans, he suffered from what he called navel-gazing, where he would just focus on his own sin, on sinning against God.He was focused on himself. That remorse never led him to Christ, never led him to God. It was actually very selfish. It's a self-concentration. I feel so bad that I did X, Y, and Z because it's impacting me in the following ways. Paul says that remorse or worldly sorrow left by itself and leads to death. Judas. Did Judas repent after selling Jesus Christ for 30 pieces of silver? Did Judas repent? He was remorseful. He brought the money back and he threw it at the feet of the Pharisees. He did not repent. Committed suicide.Others said repentance is just moral reformation, that you just change your life. Well, you go to Christianity and change your life. I go to AA to change my life. I go to rehab to change my life. I go to therapy to change my life. Repentance is more than just turning over a new leaf. Reformation is changing your behavior. It's on the behavior level. People can do that without God. Repentance is on the heart level. Repentance is when you realize that you have sinned, not just against yourself and not just against people.Repentance is when you realize that you have sinned against a holy God, God who has created you, God who has given you everything that you have and continues to give and sustain, starting with the very breath that you take. In the Hebrew, the word repentance means to turn. In the Greek, it's to change one's mind. It's a returning to God, a turning to him, turning away from sin, and turning to God. There's two parts, recognition of sin, God, I see how sinful, odious, filthy my sin is against you. I turn away from it and I turned to you.It's a godly sorrow for sinning against God, of offending the God who loves you, of offending the Christ who has made a terrible sacrifice for you, of offending and grieving the Holy Spirit who has shown you the way of eternal life. It's a fear of God mixed with a love of God that turns you from sin to him. That's why Jesus says, repent, for the kingdom of heaven is here. It's the establishment of God's rule. The king is here. His will is clear. We are to live according to it. What does fruit of repentance look like? I'm glad you asked.In Chapter 5, Jesus Christ sits down and he begins to teach his disciples. This is what fruit of repentance looks like, and he gives us the Sermon on the Mount. Definitely come back for that as we start the Sermon on the Mount next week. It's the transcript of the life of repentance to repent is to live a new life. It's a new way of life. Repentance is how you grow in the faith. It's the means by which you become a Christian. It's the means by which you continue to be a Christian. It's the means by which one is always a Christian. Humorously, I tell people that I get saved every day.When did you get saved? This morning. I was saved this morning. I say that tongue in cheek, but it's true. Because I mean I repent every day of being a sinner before a holy God. I need God's grace every day. Yes, my salvation began with justification. There was one day when that's the beginning of it. You continue in sanctification with repentance on a daily basis. Our Christian walk begins with repentance, continues with repentance. We are also then called to preach the gospel to others. That's the second point.We preach the gospel to others by making disciples, by being fishers of men. In terms of your own life, if you look at your own repentance, repentance has to do with life change. Are you repenting because the kingdom of God has drawn near? Is repentance a characteristic of your life? Are you changing in direction of Christ's example teaching commandments? Are you markedly different from a year ago? The world definitely is, but are you? Are you different from a year ago in your spiritual walk? Are you different from two years ago?To be a Christian means you are alive and you're growing and you're thriving in repentance. Point two is follow Jesus and make disciples. Verse 18, While walking by the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers, Simon (who is called Peter) and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea, for they were fishermen. He said to them, "Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men." Immediately they left their nets and followed him. Going on from there he saw two brothers, James the son of Zebedee and John his brother, in the boat with Zebedee their father, mending their nets, and he called them.Immediately they left the boat and their father and followed him. A few comments here. Sea of Galilee is actually a lake. The Galilee and industry was actually very prosperous. A lot of us, when we think of Peter, Andrew, James, and John as fishermen, we think that they're poor. Not necessarily. They probably did actually really well. They had a small business and the two families, Peter and Andrew's family and the family Zebedee, James and John, they had a partnership. They worked together. Fishermen were not educated according to the pharisaical teachings in Jerusalem.They weren't educated. A lot of people, when they read scriptures like, oh, fishermen, that means you guys are idiots. Being not educated does not mean you're dumb. Because education does not add IQ points. A lot of people have bought into the lie, that you need formal education for intelligence. Those two are very different. That's why a lot of people, when they read the epistles of Peter, I remember in seminary, reading liberal theologian commentator, they're like, "There's no way that Peter could have written this because a fisherman can't write this well."Well, how do you know? How do you know? Maybe he was a very intelligent fisherman. He didn't have to get a PhD from a school to confirm his intelligence. He was just gifted with intelligence from the Lord. Then there's the Holy Spirit that actually adds IQ points, praise God. They were fishermen. What do we know about fishermen? It was actually a very dangerous profession. People die all the time. These are people who are familiar with hard work. They're familiar with hardships. Jesus sees them.As he sees them, two of the brothers are fishing, two of the brothers are mending nets. Jesus chooses these guys who are industrious. They know hard work. They know hardships. They know what it means to be on the brink of death. He picks these brothers who have known each other, they love each other already. They've been working together. There's a camaraderie. What else do we know? Simon is a Hebrew name. It's a Jewish name. Peter is his Greek nickname. There's a mixture of the cultures there. Andrew had a Greek name.That reflects the mixture of the cultures as well. Jesus Christ calls them. Twice we see the word immediately. They left everything immediately. Was this the very first time that they met Jesus Christ? Probably not, as we see in the Gospel of Luke. They had met with Jesus in the gospel of John. Andrew is actually a follower, a disciple of John the Baptist. Then he met with Jesus. He went to check things out, and then finally called Peter. They knew about Jesus. They had time to consider the teaching of Jesus. They had time to consider the mission of Jesus.They had time to count the cost. Then finally, Jesus comes to them at a moment, he says, "Now is the time you make a decision." Today, right now, follow me. Follow me. This is what it means. This text is right after the text where he says, repent, for the kingdom of God is at hand. Now he's giving us an illustration. This is what repentance looks like. When Jesus Christ comes to you and says, follow me, follow me. This is what it means to be a Christian. This is what it means to be a disciple. This is what it means to bear fruit, keeping with repentance. Follow me.Follow Jesus Christ. You see that they leave everything immediately. They had jobs. They had family responsibilities, people that depended on them. They leave everything. We know for certain that Peter was married. He had a wife and he had a mother-in-law. He didn't leave them forever, but his priorities changed. Now his greatest priority in life is Jesus Christ and His mission. There's definitely a disruption in their lives. Then also now, they're on a path. Follow me. Means I'm putting you on a brand new path.Did James imagine that he, at this moment, is exchanging a peaceful life as a fisherman for dying brutally, way too young? Did Peter imagine he was taking his first fateful step to being crucified upside down 35 years later? No, they had no idea. St. Paul, when he was called to Jesus, he says, "I suffer the loss of all things for the sake of Christ." What did St. Paul lose? He lost a family. To study Gamaliel, you have to be at least 35 and married. Most likely, Paul was married at some point. Most likely, when he followed Christ, his wife refused to follow.Then he endured stonings and shipwrecks and beatings. He left a career where he was enjoying incredible rise to fame. Instead, he traded in for becoming a laughingstock of his former world, although, by the grace of God, he becomes the most influential, the greatest mere man who ever lived because they understood what it means to follow Jesus. To follow Jesus, yes, it begins with information. You're a disciple. You're learning things, but it also entails obedience. I'm not just following a rabbi, I'm following a king. The king tells me what to do.That's what it means to follow him. It's to live like he lived, to follow in his footsteps. 1 Peter 2:21, to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps. The phrase follow me is used 25 times in the Gospel of Matthew, because that's the essence of Christianity. Are you a Christian? I don't want to hear, yes, because I go to church, yes, because I watched church online, yes, because I read scripture. No, no, no, no. Yes, because I follow Jesus Christ. Right now, today, I am following Jesus Christ.I'm following his commandments. I'm doing what he taught me to do. What he teach us to do at the very moment that he calls these guys to himself, he calls them to his mission. It's a double invitation. It's not just follow me and enjoy the perks of being a Christian. It's follow me and I'm going to make you fishers of men. Drop everything. I'm going to make you disciple makers. You follow me, you abide in me. As you do, you are transformed to be a fisherman, a missionary. You're transformed to be a person that summons others to God.The phrase fisher is used in Jeremiah 16:16 where God says, behold, I am sending for many fishers, declares the Lord, and they will catch them. Afterward I will send for many hunters, and they will catch them from every mountain and every hill, and out of the clefts of the rocks. In Jeremiah, God speaks of fishing for people as God's judgment. The nets were God's judgment. When Jesus Christ comes, he talks about being fishers of men as God's salvation from judgment. That Jesus Christ came and he himself was caught up in the nets of God's wrath for our sin on the cross.Jesus Christ was hunted by the wrath of God for our sin. He dies on the cross, so that he can extend to us now nets of salvation to pull us out of the sea of the wrath of God that we deserve for our law breaking. That's why God says, repent, return to me, so that you are now not under the wrath of God, but under the love and mercy of God. That's what it means to make fishers of men, is to call people to God, to call people to grace, to call people to faith in Jesus through repentance. This is how Jesus Christ changed the world. Jesus Christ, did he write any books?The only thing I think Jesus wrote that we know of, is one time he wrote in his finger in the sand. Did Jesus Christ build institutions? Were there any monuments created to his life and work in his lifetime or immediately thereafter? No. How did Jesus change the world? He chose 12 men, poured his life into them, taught them to be disciples of him who make disciples. That's what discipleship is. A lot of people think discipleship is we're going to sit together and read a nice Christian book and talk about it and that's discipleship. No, that's a book club.Discipleship is when you make other disciples of Jesus Christ. That's the ultimate goal of discipleship. Discipleship isn't just reading the Bible. It's not just memorizing scripture. All of that is important, but to culminate in sharing the gospel with someone else and they become believers in Jesus Christ. This is the whole goal of the church. This is why I want to talk about like the basics, the fundamentals. We can't forget, this is our job. This is why we're here. If you move from here, your job stays the same. Just the location has changed. We're called to be fishers of men.We're called to make disciples of Jesus Christ. The question here at the end of point two is, am I following Jesus? Am I making disciples? Am I a hard worker and making disciples? Am I bold in sharing the good news of Jesus Christ? We should be. Did Jesus Christ proclaim the gospel boldly? Did everyone gets saved when he preached? No. Nazareth, his hometown, rejected him. Capernaum rejected them. He said, all right, great. I'm just going to go to the next town. I'm just going to go to the next city. You proclaim the gospel. When you do, the elect will come to faith.That's what we trust in, is in the sovereignty of God. Point three is serve people in word and deed. That's what Jesus does ministry, not just of serving them in deed and not just the word, but it's both. Matthew 4:23 and 25, and he went throughout all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease and every affliction among the people. His fame spread throughout all Syria, and they brought him all the sick, those afflicted with various diseases and pains, those oppressed by demons, those having seizures, and paralytics, and he healed them.Great crowds followed him from Galilee and the Decapolis, and from Jerusalem and Judea, and from beyond the Jordan. First, Syria here is not the modern country of Syria, but an area north of Galilee. People are traveling to see Jesus as his fame grew. What did he do? It says, he spends time teaching in the synagogues. That's the religious centers for Jewish people, preaching the good news of the kingdom to everybody, and healing people of their sickness, of their affliction, of their demon possession. Jesus Christ is the second person of the trinity of the triune Almighty God.It's inevitable that Jesus performs miracles. He's the maker of the world. He's the Savior of the world. He's the one who created sight, therefore he can give it to the blind. He created the hearing so he can give it to the deaf, et cetera. Jesus is the God man, the maker of heaven and earth. We should not be surprised that he does miracles. We should expect it. We should expect it. It's more of a surprise that Jesus died, then that he rose again. The resurrection should not be a surprise. He's the God man. Of course, he comes back from the dead. Surprise that he dies.You expect creation from the creator, that he has creative power, the one who gives life can restore and resurrect. Perhaps, that's why the gospel writers, they present the miracles very nonchalantly. Yeah, Jesus walked around and he resurrected this guy and gave sight to this guy. Yeah, because he's the God man. That shouldn't be an issue. The question is, why did God give us these miracles? The scripture says that they are signs. Acts 2:22, men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know.They're wonders and signs, meaning God gives them to point to a greater truth and a greater reality. Nicodemus, when he came to Jesus by night in John Chapter 3 says, "Rabbi, we know that you are sent from God, because no one can perform the miraculous signs that you were doing." For Jesus, the miracles weren't the point. Because miracles do not change hearts. That's why in Matthew 11, he says, "Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For signs done in you had been done." They saw signs, they didn't get saved.That's why Jesus, whenever he did signs, the miracles were given to bolster faith, not to create faith. Faith is only given to us as a gift from God. Mark 1:32 through 39, incredible passages where Jesus heals people and then stops. That evening at sundown they brought to him all who were sick or oppressed by demons. The whole city was gathered together at the door. He healed many who were sick with various diseases, and cast out many demons. He would not permit the demons to speak, because they knew him.Rising very early in the morning, while it was still dark, he departed and went out to a desolate place where he prayed. Simon and those who were with him searched for him, and they found him and said to him, "Everyone is looking for you." He said to them, "Let us go on to the next towns." Everyone is looking for you to get healed again. More people want to get healed. "Everyone is looking for you." He said to them, "Let us go on to the next towns that I may preach there also, for that is why I came out."He went throughout all Galilee, preaching in their synagogues and casting out demons. What's Jesus saying? He's saying, I can heal you of your sickness. If you do not repent of your sin, you are desperately sick. What's the point of you physically getting healed? Then time passes and you die, and you are spiritually sick for all of eternity in a place called hell. What's the point? Jesus focuses on the gospel, that this is the greatest news. This is the only hope for the world. This is the only thing that can transform us. He does do miracles.There are miracles that point to the greater miracle. The greatest miracle of all, is that God resurrects people from spiritual death, that God gives the gift of repentance, gives the gift of faith, gives the gift of obedience, the gift of the Holy Spirit. When Jesus feeds the 15,000, it's a sign that he is the bread of life. When he heals sick, it's a picture of him delivering us from the sickness of sin and death. When he drives out demons out of the possessed, it's to show that he has power over Satan.When he speaks to a paralyzed man, your sins are forgiven, now pick up your bed and walk, he's showing that the greatest paralysis that you have is that of sin. The second is the physical paralysis. Physical healing is a sign. Forgiveness is a reality. We live in a world where more than ever, in this season, we've been thinking about death and people getting sick. That's why it's more important than ever for us to not forget our job. A lot of Christians, I think, have taken a little vacation from the great commission. Why? Pandemic. That's an excuse for everything, pandemic.No. We still have a job to do, which is the great commission of Jesus Christ, to go and make disciples. Let us not forget that. So that when people do die, which is inevitable, we're all going to die. We go to a better place because of your faith in Jesus Christ, because of repentance, because you are a disciple, because you follow him. Think of Lazarus, I always think of Lazarus. Lazarus came back from the dead. That's awesome. Comes back. Live in life. New lease on life. You ever have a near death experience and then for a week, you're a much better human being. It's awesome.Lazarus comes back. Oh, this is incredible. Life again. Wow! Then years go by, I don't know how many years, a decade, maybe two. Then he's on his deathbed again. Tell me how he feels. Most likely, he's pumped. I'm so glad to be done with this dump. Mission accomplished. I'm going to heaven. I'm spending eternity with Jesus. I can't wait. That's how I feel about it. I tell my wife all the time. She's not enthused by that. I was like, "I can't wait to go to Jesus. Jobs done. I'm going to heaven." She's like, "You still got four kids to raise." I'm like, "Yeah, that's right."That's why I'm here. It's better for me to stay for a little while longer. When you believe in Jesus Christ, that's the assurance you have, that's the truth you have, that Jesus Christ brings light and life to the whole person. He can forgive anyone and everyone of all sins. He can heal any emotional heartache. He can free from any deep addiction. He can heal any physical disease, any broken heart, any struggling families. If you're not a Christian, come to Jesus Christ. If you are a Christian, come to Jesus Christ as well.If you missed any of the points, repent and preach the gospel, follow Jesus, make disciples, serve people in word and in deed. Let's pray. Lord, we thank you for this time in the Holy Scriptures. We love the scriptures. They don't just teach us and illuminate our minds, but they feed our souls. We thank you for the reminder, that we are to repent of sins and follow you and to make disciples and to serve people on a daily basis in both word and deed. We pray, continue to send us the Holy Spirit, continue to embolden us to speak the truth of the gospel.Continue to give us opportunities to speak the gospel and call people to repentance because they've offended a holy God, but he's also a merciful God who sent us Jesus Christ, who died on the cross for our sins. For that, we thank you. In Jesus Christ's name we pray, amen.

I know the abuse scandal was a huge obstacle in my faith. I felt as though I couldn't trust the Church or the pastors who were supposed to shepherd me. It was a betrayal. Despite all this, I found a way to separate the sins of shepherds from the mission they pursue. Letter to a Suffering Church is a great, short book that can be very comforting to anyone who's angry about this. The reason for this book review is that Bishop Robert Barron's work here really impacted my thoughts and feelings on this subject. Because of that, I think this book review will help Catholics and non-Catholics understand this crisis and dispel myths. So, get your copy of Letter to a Suffering Church or listen to my review for more. The secular culture we live in is not only anti-religion, but also often overly sexualized. In this book, you'll find all the problems that stem from the culture and its influence on the church. Bishop Barron doesn't make excuses, but owns up to the abuses. He calls out those who are guilty and calls people to account. However, he does show how this didn't come from thin air, but arose in a certain context. “The Emperor Napoleon is said to have confronted Cardinal Consalvi, the secretary of state to Pope Pius VII, saying that he, Napoleon, would destroy the Church—to which the Cardinal deftly responded, “Oh my little man, you think you're going to succeed in accomplishing what centuries of priests and bishops have tried and failed to do?” -Bishop Robert Barron Grab your copy of Letter to a Suffering Church here. The reason I'm bringing this out now is there are a lot of people who enjoy being critical of the Church. And, many of these people make money from their critical lens. Not to mention, lots of these people are in the Church or leaving it due to these. Lastly, I like this book because it offers solutions. It diagnoses the problems, offers context, and then shows what people can do to make things right. And, with the Conversation of Our Generation's goal of solving problems of today with the wisdom of the past, this resonated with me. So, I want to share it with you here. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/conofourgen/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/conofourgen/support

Pop quiz: which general defeated Napoleon? If you grew up speaking English, chances are you answered “Wellington.” The Duke who commanded British forces at the Battle of Waterloo, Wellington was indeed the man who oversaw Emperor Napoleon’s bitter end. But while Waterloo may have been the epilogue to the Napoleonic Wars, it wasn’t the grand finale. No, that had come over a year earlier, when one general managed to smash Napoleon’s Grand Armee; invade France, capture Paris, and force le petit caporal to abdicate his throne and go into exile. The identity of that man? Prince Karl Philipp von Schwarzenberg.

Andrea Sella, Professor of Inorganic Chemistry at University College London, celebrates the art and science of the chemical elements. Today he looks at aluminium and strontium, elements that give us visual treats. At the time of Emperor Napoleon the Third in 19th century France aluminium was more valuable than gold and silver. The Emperor liked the metal so much he had his cutlery made out of it. But once a cheaper way was discovered to extract aluminium it began to be used for all kinds of objects, from aeroplanes to coffee pots. Andrea talks to Professor Mark Miodownik at the Institute of Making at UCL about why aluminium is such a useful material, from keeping crisps crisp to the tinsel on our Christmas trees. And he talks about the lightness of bicycles made from aluminium with Keith Noronha, of Reynolds Technology. Strontium is the 15th most common element in the earth yet we really only come into contact with it in fireworks. It gives us the deep red colour we admire in a pyrotechnics display. Andrea meets Mike Sansom of Brighton Fireworks who explains how a firework is constructed and reveals the chemical mix that creates the bright red flashes. Professor Thomas Klapötke of the Ludwig-Maximilians University in Munich talks about his search for a substitute for strontium in fireworks and about how the element can get into our bones. Rupert Cole at the Science Museum in London shows Andrea how Humphry Davy was the first to extract strontium from rocks found in Scotland. And Janet Montgomery, Professor of Archaeology at Durham University, explains how strontium traces have revealed that our Neolithic ancestors moved around much more than was previously thought. Nearly half the people buried around Stonehenge in Southern England were born in places with different rocks from those under Salisbury Plain in Southern England. Picture: Fireworks, credit: rzelich/Getty Images

The Governor wouldn’t give Napoleon a book sent by the author because the author wrote “Emperor Napoleon” on it. … Le Gouverneur ne donnerait pas à Napoléon un livre envoyé par l'auteur parce que l'auteur y a écrit «l'empereur Napoléon». https://www.thetanster.com/blog/2019/2/11/napoleon-memoirs-links

This week the Nerds welcome Dev-i-boy to the group. Dev-i-boy is also known as Brad, a Brisbane game developer, who we interviewed around a year ago. Check that one out too, it's a good one and it'll be in the show notes below.Professor and Dev-i-boy are gushing over Half Life: Alyx, despite a massive lack of Valve Index availability in Australia. Why, Valve, why?. HL:Alyx also doubles as an online lecture platform, a Cover your Cough training simulator and apparently, a generally good game.DJ wants to see the Dragons Lair movie. Ryan Reynolds has been cast in a live action remake of a classic animated Laserdisc game from 1983. Don Bluth is on board, so it should be something interesting to watch.Once again, the Nerds take on the topic of dinosaur chickens. Professor rants about the software design skills of Dennis Nedry and Dev-i-boy thinks there's no point in bringing back dinosaur chickens. But imagine the drumsticks on those chooks.As usual, we cover the games of the week and remember some famous figures who passed away this week.Half Life & Valve news- https://uploadvr.com/new-valve-vr-games/- https://store.steampowered.com/app/1271440/Next_Gen_HP_VR_Headset/- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKsSsEmfjoE&feature=emb_titleDragon’s Lair Movie remake-https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/ryan-reynolds-talks-tackle-live-action-film-80s-game-dragons-lair-1279270Recreating living dinosaurs now a reality-https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/247402?fbclid=IwAR2oerRwD5V1i3wiT_uBZglAOB5pbAazIK5GYFTxWFwlYbV4KrClpkFsRzkGames PlayedProfessor– Half-Life 2: Update - https://store.steampowered.com/app/290930/HalfLife_2_Update/Rating – 4/5DJ– Call of Duty : Warzone - https://www.callofduty.com/warzoneRating – 4/5Dev-i-Boy- The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Legend_of_Zelda:_The_Wind_WakerRating – 4/5- Colin McRae Rally 2005 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_McRae_Rally_2005Rating – 5/5Other topics discussedA Nerds Special - An Interview with An Aspie Life developer : Bradley Hennessey - https://thatsnotcanon.com/topshelfnerdspodcast/episode87Valve to pay AU$3 million fine for misleading Australian gamers- https://www.cnet.com/news/valve-to-pay-3-million-fine-for-misleading-australian-gamers/F-Stop or 'Directed Design Experiments'- https://vcc.wiki/wiki/F-StopMath Teacher’s class in Virtual Reality- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3g9jrqjOZsOculus Headset- https://www.oculus.com/?locale=en_USOculus Rift Store- https://www.oculus.com/experiences/rift/?locale=en_USSullivan Bluth Studios (Irish-American animation studio established in 1979 by animator Don Bluth.)- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sullivan_Bluth_StudiosDetective Pikachu (2019 urban fantasymystery film directed by Rob Letterman.)- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detective_Pikachu_(film)Free Guy (upcoming 2020 American science fiction action comedy film directed by Shawn Levy, a story by Matt Lieberman, and a screenplay by Lieberman and Zak Penn.)- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_GuyCastlevania (an action-adventure gothic horrorvideo game series about vampire hunters created and developed by Konami.)- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CastlevaniaBlack Mirror: Bandersnatch (2018 interactive film in the science fiction anthology series Black Mirror.)- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Mirror:_BandersnatchGreen Lantern (2011 American superhero film based on the DC Comics character of the same name.)- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Lantern_(film)R.I.P.D. (R.I.P.D.: Rest in Peace Department, or simply R.I.P.D., is a 2013 American science fiction action comedy film starring Jeff Bridges and Ryan Reynolds.)- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.I.P.D.Clive Palmer's dinosaur Jeff destroyed by fire at Palmer Coolum Resort- https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-03/fire-guts-jeff-the-dinosaur-at-clive-palmer-resort/6276188Dennis Nedry (a computer programmer at Jurassic Park and the secondary antagonist of the orginal Jurassic Park Film.)- https://jurassicpark.fandom.com/wiki/Dennis_NedryFakeFactory Cinematic Mod for Half-Life 2- https://www.moddb.com/mods/fakefactory-cinematic-modNo Man’s Land (2001 Bosnian war film that is set in the midst of the Bosnian War.)- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Man%27s_Land_(2001_film)Black Beauty (1994 American film adaptation of Anna Sewell's novel by the same name directed by Caroline Thompson in her directorial debut.)- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Beauty_(1994_film)The Matrix 4 (upcoming American science fiction action film and the fourth installment in The Matrix franchise. The film is co-written and directed by Lana Wachowski, one of the two Wachowskis who directed the previous three films.)- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Matrix_4That’s Not COVID (TNC Podcast)- https://thatsnotcanon.com/thatsnotcovidpodcastShout Outs29 March 2020 - Alan Merrill, ‘I Love Rock ‘N’ Roll’ Songwriter dies at 69 - https://deadline.com/2020/03/alan-merrill-dead-coronavirus-i-love-rock-n-roll-songwriter-joan-jett-and-the-blackhearts-obituary-1202895407/Merrill was a member of the band The Arrows along with drummer Paul Varley and guitarist Jake Hooker. While in the band, he wrote the song “I Love Rock ‘n’ Roll” which the band released in 1975. The song would later become a chart topper for Joan Jett & The Blackhearts in 1982. In an interview with Songfacts, Merrill said he wrote the song as "a knee-jerk response to the Rolling Stones' 'It's Only Rock 'n Roll (But I Like It)'." This version was first released as a B-side, but was soon re-recorded and flipped to A-side status on a subsequent pressing of the record. Arrows performed the song in 1975 on the Muriel Young-produced show 45, after which Young offered Arrows a weekly UK television series, Arrows, which was broadcast on ITV starting in March 1976. Joan Jett saw the Arrows perform "I Love Rock 'n' Roll" on their weekly UK television series Arrows while she was touring England with the Runaways in 1976. She first recorded the song in 1979 with two of the Sex Pistols,Steve Jones and Paul Cook. He died from complications arising from COVID-19 at the age of 69 in Manhattan, New York City.29 March 2020 - Krzysztof Penderecki dies at 86 - https://deadline.com/2020/03/krzysztof-penderecki-dies-composers-work-used-in-the-exorcist-and-the-shining-was-86-1202895207/Krzysztof Penderecki, a Polish composer and conductor whose modernist works were on soundtracks for The Exorcist and The Shining. Penderecki was an avant-garde composer and prolific in his output. His resume includes eight symphonies, four operas, a requiem, and several concertos. Film directors often used Penderecki music to capture their moods. His music was used in Martin Scorsese’s Shutter Island, Peter Weir’s Fearless, David Lynch’s Wild at Heart and Inland Empire in addition to The Exorcist and The Shining. Pop music also revered Penderecki. Artists ranging from Kele Okereke of Bloc Party and Robbie Robertson of the Band to Jonny Greenwood of Radiohead were fans. He died from a long illness at the age of 86 in Kraków.31 March 2020 – MDK2 turns 20 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDK2MDK2 is a 2000 third-person shooter, action-adventure video game developed by BioWare and published by Interplay Entertainment for the Dreamcast,Windows and PlayStation 2. It is a sequel to the 1997 game MDK. First released for the Dreamcast in March 2000, it was later released for Windows in May, with newly selectable difficulty levels and the ability to manually save. The game begins moments after the end of the original MDK. MDK2 received generally positive reviews across all systems, with critics praising the graphics, variety of gameplay styles, level design, boss fights, the game's sense of humor, and its fidelity to the original MDK. The most commonly criticized aspects of the game were the difficulty level, which was felt to be too high, and the platforming sections, which many critics found frustrating and too exacting.Remembrances30 March 1962 - Philip Showalter Hench - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Showalter_HenchAmerican physician. Hench, along with his Mayo Clinic co-worker Edward Calvin Kendall and Swiss chemist Tadeus Reichstein was awarded the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine in 1950 for the discovery of the hormone cortisone, and its application for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. The Nobel Committee bestowed the award for the trio's "discoveries relating to the hormones of the adrenal cortex, their structure and biological effects." His speech at the banquet during the award ceremony acknowledged the connections between the study of medicine and chemistry, saying of his co-winners "Perhaps the ratio of one physician to two chemists is symbolic, since medicine is so firmly linked to chemistry by a double bond." In addition to the Nobel Prize, Hench received many other awards and honors throughout his career. He also had a lifelong interest in the history and discovery of yellow fever. He died from pneumonia at the age of 69 in Ocho Rios.30 March 2004 – Michael King - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_KingNew Zealand popular historian, author, and biographer. He wrote or edited over 30 books on New Zealand topics, including the best-sellingPenguin History of New Zealand, which was the most popular New Zealand book of 2004. King was well known for his knowledge of Māori culture and history. New Zealand Listener, one of New Zealand's most popular weekly magazines, dubbed King "the people's historian" for his efforts to write about and for the local populace. He died from a traffic collision at the age of 58 in near Maramarua,Waikato.30 March 2008 - Dith Pran - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dith_PranCambodian photojournalist, he was a refugee and survivor of the Cambodian genocide and the subject of the film The Killing Fields. In 1975, Dith and The New York Times reporter Sydney Schanberg stayed behind in Cambodia to cover the fall of the capital Phnom Penh to the Communist Khmer Rouge. Schanberg and other foreign reporters were allowed to leave the country, but Pran was not. Due to persecution of intellectuals during the genocide, he hid the fact that he was educated or that he knew Americans, and he pretended that he had been a taxi driver. When Cambodians were forced to work in labour camps, Dith had to endure four years of starvation and torture before Vietnam overthrew the Khmer Rouge in December 1978. He coined the phrase "killing fields" to refer to the clusters of corpses and skeletal remains of victims he encountered during his 40-mile (60 km) escape. He gained worldwide recognition after the 1984 release of the film The Killing Fields about his experiences under the Khmer Rouge. He was portrayed in the film by first-time actor Haing S. Ngor (1940–1996), who won an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor for his performance. He died from pancreatic cancer at the age of 65 in New Brunswick, New Jersey.Famous Birthdays30 March 1820 – Anna Sewell - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_SewellEnglish novelist. She is well known as the author of the 1877 novel Black Beauty, which is now considered one of the top ten bestselling novels for children ever written, although it was intended at the time for an adult audience. During this time her health was declining; she was often so weak that she was confined to her bed. Writing was a challenge. She dictated the text to her mother and from 1876 began to write on slips of paper which her mother then transcribed. The book is the first English novel to be written from the perspective of a non-human animal, in this case a horse. Although it is now considered a children's classic, Sewell originally wrote it for those who worked with horses. She said, "a special aim was to induce kindness, sympathy, and an understanding treatment of horses". In many respects the book can be read as a guide to horse husbandry, stable management and humane training practices for colts. It is considered to have had an effect on reducing cruelty to horses; for example, the use of bearing reins, which are particularly painful for a horse, was one of the practices highlighted in the novel, and in the years after the book's release the reins became less popular and fell out of favour. She was born in Great Yarmouth, Norfolk.30 March 1853 – Vincent Van Gogh - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_van_GoghVincent Willem van Gogh, Dutch post-impressionist painter who is among the most famous and influential figures in the history of Western art. In just over a decade, he created about 2,100 artworks, including around 860 oil paintings, most of which date from the last two years of his life. They include landscapes, still lifes,portraits and self-portraits, and are characterised by bold colours and dramatic, impulsive and expressive brushwork that contributed to the foundations of modern art. His reputation began to grow in the early 20th century as elements of his painting style came to be incorporated by the Fauves and German Expressionists. He attained widespread critical, commercial and popular success over the ensuing decades, and is remembered as an important but tragic painter, whose troubled personality typifies the romantic ideal of the tortured artist. Today, Van Gogh's works are among the world's most expensive paintings to have ever sold, and his legacy is honoured by a museum in his name, the Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam, which holds the world's largest collection of his paintings and drawings. On 30th March 2020, his painting titled The Parsonage Garden at Nuenen in Spring, was stolen from the Singer Laren museum in Laren, North Holland. It was stolen in an overnight smash-and-grab raid on a museum that was closed to prevent the spread of coronavirus. He was born in Zundert.30 March 1930 - John Astin - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_AstinAmerican actor who has appeared in numerous films and television series, as well as a television director and voice artist. He is best known for starring as Gomez Addams in The Addams Family, reprising the role in the television film Halloween with the New Addams Family and the animated series The Addams Family. Notable film projects include West Side Story, Freaky Friday, National Lampoon's European Vacation and Teen Wolf Too. His second wife was actress Patty Duke and he is the adoptive father of Duke's son, actor Sean Astin. Astin is director of the Theater Arts and Studies Department and Homewood Professor of the Arts at Johns Hopkins University, his alma mater, which offers an undergraduate minor program. He was born in Baltimore,Maryland.Events of Interest29 March 1979 – Another Brick in the Wall, Part II hits number one - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Billboard_Hot_100_number-one_singles_of_1980"Another Brick in the Wall (Part 2)" was released as a single, Pink Floyd's first in the UK since "Point Me at the Sky". It was Pink Floyd's only number-one hit in the United Kingdom, the United States, West Germany and several other countries. The single sold over 4 million copies worldwide. "Part 2" was nominated for a Grammy Award for Best Performance by a Rock Duo or Group. The lyrics attracted controversy. The Inner London Education Authority described the song as "scandalous", and according to Renshaw, prime minister Margaret Thatcher "hated it". Renshaw said: "There was a political knee-jerk reaction to a song that had nothing to do with the education system. It was [Waters'] reflections on his life and how his schooling was part of that." The single, as well as the album The Wall, were banned in South Africa in 1980 after it was adopted by supporters of a nationwide school boycott protesting racial inequities in education under apartheid.30 March 1814 - Napoleon's forces defeated in Paris- https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/allies-capture-paris- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Paris_(1814)European forces allied against Napoleonic France march triumphantly into Paris, formally ending a decade of French domination on the Continent. After a day of fighting in the suburbs of Paris, the French surrendered on March 31, ending the War of the Sixth Coalition and forcing Emperor Napoleon to abdicate and go into exile.31 March 1999 - "The Matrix" released in theaters - https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/the-matrix-releasedOn March 31, 1999, the writing and directing sibling team of Lana and Lilly Wachowski release their second film, the mind-blowing science-fiction blockbuster The Matrix. Filmed for $70 million, The Matrix was a stylish, innovative and visually spectacular take on a familiar premise–that humans are unknowing inhabitants of a world controlled by machines–central to films such as Alien and 2001: A Space Odyssey. The Matrix starred Keanu Reeves as a computer hacker who learns that human-like computers have created a fake world, the Matrix, to enslave the remaining humans while keeping them in the dark about their dire fate. Packed with slow-motion camera tricks and references from a myriad of sources–including comic books, the Bible, Lewis Carroll, Eastern philosophy and film noir—The Matrix also stunned viewers with its Hong Kong-style fight scenes, choreographed by the martial-arts master Yuen Wo Ping and performed with the help of invisible wires allowing the characters to fly through the air. Greeted with enthusiasm by computer-gaming fanatics and mainstream audiences alike, The Matrix earned a staggering $470 million worldwide and won four Academy Awards, for Best Editing, Best Sound Effects Editing, Best Visual Effects and Best Sound.Follow us onFacebook- Page - https://www.facebook.com/NerdsAmalgamated/- Group - https://www.facebook.com/groups/440485136816406/Twitter - https://twitter.com/NAmalgamatedSpotify - https://open.spotify.com/show/6Nux69rftdBeeEXwD8GXrSiTunes - https://itunes.apple.com/au/podcast/top-shelf-nerds/id1347661094RSS - http://www.thatsnotcanonproductions.com/topshelfnerdspodcast?format=rssInstagram - https://www.instagram.com/nerds_amalgamated/General EnquiriesEmail - Nerds.Amalgamated@gmail.comRate & Review us on Podchaser - https://www.podchaser.com/podcasts/nerds-amalgamated-623195

Did Napoleon ever say which general he regarded as his best opponent? If yes, who is it?

I must’ve been a kid when I first heard the palindrome “Able I was ere I saw Elba”. Napoleon didn’t mean a lot to me at the time. “Elba” meant even less. Decades later, I had learned a little more about Napoleon and his time there, but not that all that much it turns out. And then came Mark Braude’s The Invisible Emperor: Napoleon on Elba from Empire to Exile (Penguin Press, 2018)… This unexpected and absorbing book delves into the story of Napoleon’s exile on the island of Elba following his abdication in 1814. After his escape and return to France for the “100 Days,” Napoleon was, of course, finally defeated at Waterloo in 1815. The Invisible Emperor explores a period in between the “bigger-ticket” events with which readers may be more familiar, a time and space in which Napoleon at once out of sight and more in contact with everyday people than perhaps at any other point in his career. Written in multiple short chapters comprising four parts that follow the seasons of Bonaparte’s ten-month stay on Elba, The Invisible Emperor reconsiders the Napoleonic legend from the point of view of a moment of relative quiet in a modest setting. Carefully researched and a pleasure to read, it challenges aspects of the towering historical figure’s mythology. The space, timeline, and scale of this history may be small, but this is a Napoleon we don’t typically hear about. Presented in a narrative rich with curious details and a surprising intimacy, The Invisible Emperor manages to humanize an epic history and life about which so much has been written over the past two centuries. Roxanne Panchasi is an Associate Professor in the Department of History at Simon Fraser University. Her current research focuses on the representation of nuclear weapons and testing in France and its empire since 1945. She lives and reads in Vancouver, Canada. If you have a recent title to suggest, please send an email to: panchasi@sfu.ca. *The music that opens and closes the podcast is an instrumental version of “Creatures,” a song written and performed by Vancouver artist/musician Casey Wei (“hazy”). To hear more, please visit https://agonyklub.com/.   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

I must’ve been a kid when I first heard the palindrome “Able I was ere I saw Elba”. Napoleon didn’t mean a lot to me at the time. “Elba” meant even less. Decades later, I had learned a little more about Napoleon and his time there, but not that all that much it turns out. And then came Mark Braude’s The Invisible Emperor: Napoleon on Elba from Empire to Exile (Penguin Press, 2018)… This unexpected and absorbing book delves into the story of Napoleon’s exile on the island of Elba following his abdication in 1814. After his escape and return to France for the “100 Days,” Napoleon was, of course, finally defeated at Waterloo in 1815. The Invisible Emperor explores a period in between the “bigger-ticket” events with which readers may be more familiar, a time and space in which Napoleon at once out of sight and more in contact with everyday people than perhaps at any other point in his career. Written in multiple short chapters comprising four parts that follow the seasons of Bonaparte’s ten-month stay on Elba, The Invisible Emperor reconsiders the Napoleonic legend from the point of view of a moment of relative quiet in a modest setting. Carefully researched and a pleasure to read, it challenges aspects of the towering historical figure’s mythology. The space, timeline, and scale of this history may be small, but this is a Napoleon we don’t typically hear about. Presented in a narrative rich with curious details and a surprising intimacy, The Invisible Emperor manages to humanize an epic history and life about which so much has been written over the past two centuries. Roxanne Panchasi is an Associate Professor in the Department of History at Simon Fraser University. Her current research focuses on the representation of nuclear weapons and testing in France and its empire since 1945. She lives and reads in Vancouver, Canada. If you have a recent title to suggest, please send an email to: panchasi@sfu.ca. *The music that opens and closes the podcast is an instrumental version of “Creatures,” a song written and performed by Vancouver artist/musician Casey Wei (“hazy”). To hear more, please visit https://agonyklub.com/.   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

I must’ve been a kid when I first heard the palindrome “Able I was ere I saw Elba”. Napoleon didn’t mean a lot to me at the time. “Elba” meant even less. Decades later, I had learned a little more about Napoleon and his time there, but not that all that much it turns out. And then came Mark Braude’s The Invisible Emperor: Napoleon on Elba from Empire to Exile (Penguin Press, 2018)… This unexpected and absorbing book delves into the story of Napoleon’s exile on the island of Elba following his abdication in 1814. After his escape and return to France for the “100 Days,” Napoleon was, of course, finally defeated at Waterloo in 1815. The Invisible Emperor explores a period in between the “bigger-ticket” events with which readers may be more familiar, a time and space in which Napoleon at once out of sight and more in contact with everyday people than perhaps at any other point in his career. Written in multiple short chapters comprising four parts that follow the seasons of Bonaparte’s ten-month stay on Elba, The Invisible Emperor reconsiders the Napoleonic legend from the point of view of a moment of relative quiet in a modest setting. Carefully researched and a pleasure to read, it challenges aspects of the towering historical figure’s mythology. The space, timeline, and scale of this history may be small, but this is a Napoleon we don’t typically hear about. Presented in a narrative rich with curious details and a surprising intimacy, The Invisible Emperor manages to humanize an epic history and life about which so much has been written over the past two centuries. Roxanne Panchasi is an Associate Professor in the Department of History at Simon Fraser University. Her current research focuses on the representation of nuclear weapons and testing in France and its empire since 1945. She lives and reads in Vancouver, Canada. If you have a recent title to suggest, please send an email to: panchasi@sfu.ca. *The music that opens and closes the podcast is an instrumental version of “Creatures,” a song written and performed by Vancouver artist/musician Casey Wei (“hazy”). To hear more, please visit https://agonyklub.com/.   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

I must’ve been a kid when I first heard the palindrome “Able I was ere I saw Elba”. Napoleon didn’t mean a lot to me at the time. “Elba” meant even less. Decades later, I had learned a little more about Napoleon and his time there, but not that all that much it turns out. And then came Mark Braude’s The Invisible Emperor: Napoleon on Elba from Empire to Exile (Penguin Press, 2018)… This unexpected and absorbing book delves into the story of Napoleon’s exile on the island of Elba following his abdication in 1814. After his escape and return to France for the “100 Days,” Napoleon was, of course, finally defeated at Waterloo in 1815. The Invisible Emperor explores a period in between the “bigger-ticket” events with which readers may be more familiar, a time and space in which Napoleon at once out of sight and more in contact with everyday people than perhaps at any other point in his career. Written in multiple short chapters comprising four parts that follow the seasons of Bonaparte’s ten-month stay on Elba, The Invisible Emperor reconsiders the Napoleonic legend from the point of view of a moment of relative quiet in a modest setting. Carefully researched and a pleasure to read, it challenges aspects of the towering historical figure’s mythology. The space, timeline, and scale of this history may be small, but this is a Napoleon we don’t typically hear about. Presented in a narrative rich with curious details and a surprising intimacy, The Invisible Emperor manages to humanize an epic history and life about which so much has been written over the past two centuries. Roxanne Panchasi is an Associate Professor in the Department of History at Simon Fraser University. Her current research focuses on the representation of nuclear weapons and testing in France and its empire since 1945. She lives and reads in Vancouver, Canada. If you have a recent title to suggest, please send an email to: panchasi@sfu.ca. *The music that opens and closes the podcast is an instrumental version of “Creatures,” a song written and performed by Vancouver artist/musician Casey Wei (“hazy”). To hear more, please visit https://agonyklub.com/.   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

I must’ve been a kid when I first heard the palindrome “Able I was ere I saw Elba”. Napoleon didn’t mean a lot to me at the time. “Elba” meant even less. Decades later, I had learned a little more about Napoleon and his time there, but not that all that much it turns out. And then came Mark Braude’s The Invisible Emperor: Napoleon on Elba from Empire to Exile (Penguin Press, 2018)… This unexpected and absorbing book delves into the story of Napoleon’s exile on the island of Elba following his abdication in 1814. After his escape and return to France for the “100 Days,” Napoleon was, of course, finally defeated at Waterloo in 1815. The Invisible Emperor explores a period in between the “bigger-ticket” events with which readers may be more familiar, a time and space in which Napoleon at once out of sight and more in contact with everyday people than perhaps at any other point in his career. Written in multiple short chapters comprising four parts that follow the seasons of Bonaparte’s ten-month stay on Elba, The Invisible Emperor reconsiders the Napoleonic legend from the point of view of a moment of relative quiet in a modest setting. Carefully researched and a pleasure to read, it challenges aspects of the towering historical figure’s mythology. The space, timeline, and scale of this history may be small, but this is a Napoleon we don’t typically hear about. Presented in a narrative rich with curious details and a surprising intimacy, The Invisible Emperor manages to humanize an epic history and life about which so much has been written over the past two centuries. Roxanne Panchasi is an Associate Professor in the Department of History at Simon Fraser University. Her current research focuses on the representation of nuclear weapons and testing in France and its empire since 1945. She lives and reads in Vancouver, Canada. If you have a recent title to suggest, please send an email to: panchasi@sfu.ca. *The music that opens and closes the podcast is an instrumental version of “Creatures,” a song written and performed by Vancouver artist/musician Casey Wei (“hazy”). To hear more, please visit https://agonyklub.com/.   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Nevsky Prospekt 'is Petersburg' according to Gogol, writing in the 1830s, and this long road is still today the backbone of the city. We explore it, stopping off at three of its best-known buildings, starting with the Alexander Nevsky Monastery, burial ground of Dostoyevsky and Tchaikovsky. Then it’s on to the Cathedral of Our Lady of Kazan, scene of so many imperial funerals and of the Te Deum held to celebrate the delivery of Moscow from the Emperor Napoleon. And finally, we take in the onion-domed, riotously colourful Church on the Spilled Blood, built on the exact spot where Alexander II was assassinated in 1881, and hear the story behind that. http://www.citybreakspodcast.co.uk

January 28, 2019 - Mark Braude, who we chatted with previously about his book: Making Monte Carlo: A History of Speculation and Spectacle, brings us the tale of a legendary military leader who's almost too big for the word legend. Napoleon Bonaparte of France. We meet the titan of France not at the peak of his power, but at his low-point: Cast out, kicked off the throne, and walking among the citizens of a tiny island as one of them. The book is The Invisible Emperor: Napoleon on Elba from Exile to Escape. Mark Braude is a National Endowment for the Humanities 2017-2018 Public Scholar and former lecturer of history at Stanford University, having earned a Ph.D. in Modern European History from the University of Southern California, as well as a Masters in French Studies from our own New York University. Visit him at MarkBraude.com.      

In the trouble world of 1815, there can be no peace in Europe. Napoleon must go to war. Join me in discovering how the storm clouds of war that had gathered over Europe finally broke. This episode covers An introduction to the position of the forces on 14 June 1815 How the armies began their […] The post Episode 004 Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte marches to war! appeared first on AGE OF VICTORIA PODCAST.

In the trouble world of 1815, there can be no peace in Europe. Napoleon must go to war. Join me in discovering how the storm clouds of war that had gathered over Europe finally broke. This episode covers An introduction to the position of the forces on 14 June 1815 […] The post Episode 004 Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte marches to war! appeared first on AGE OF VICTORIA PODCAST.

Maria Semple on "Today Will Be Different" - 1:23The world of Maria Semple's imagination is a glowing place. Her characters rocket off on madcap adventures; they collide at high speed; they teeter on the edge of emotional cliffhangers. Some passages crackle with the comedic snap she honed writing for TV shows like “Arrested Development” and "Mad About You," but at the center of her stories are quiet emotional truths. Semple’s last novel was the "New York Times" best-seller “Where’d You Go, Bernadette?” — a merry chase on the trail of a formidable heroine that's currently being adapted into a movie starring Cate Blanchett, Kristen Wiig and Billy Crudup. This year she’s back with another kind of caper, "Today Will Be Different," which in turn will be made into an HBO limited series starring Julia Roberts and written by Semple.Rabih Alameddine on "The Angel of History" - 17:05Rabih Alameddine possesses the kind of multifaceted mind we all aspire to. His career has spanned engineering, painting and writing, and his six books keenly bridge the Middle East and the West, religion and sexuality, history and pop culture. In "The Angel of History," Alameddine mixes many different currents to tell the story of a young Yemeni-born, gay man who weathers San Francisco’s AIDS epidemic through an unusual relationship with Satan and a gaggle of saints. Alameddine talks about the gray areas between good and evil, Satan as a protagonist, and the importance of remembering the past, particularly the hardest moments, in order to move into the future."The Angel of History" recently won the Lambda Literary Award for Gay Fiction.Alexander Chee on "The Queen of the Night" - 35:47Alexander Chee’s new book, “The Queen of the Night,” is a waltz through a kaleidoscopic 19th-century world of opera, romance and intrigue that the "New York Times" called a "post modern bodice ripper." It follow the journey of a 19th-century American girl from a circus to a brothel to the service of France's empress to the glamorous life of a star soprano. Chee tells us how he interwove his own characters with historic giants of France’s Second Empire, like Verdi, famous courtesans and the Emperor Napoleon the Third, as well as his own journey from boy soprano to novelist.

This week, we bring you the second of two shows we'd recorded live at Wordstock, Portland's book festival. It's sparkling hour with three witty truth-tellers. But first, we wanted to check in: how're you feeling after the election. Artists Respond to TrumpPortland hip-hop sensation Aminé hit the stage of "The Tonight Show" Tuesday, adding some politics to his viral song “Caroline”: "You can never make American great again / All you did is make this country hate again." His voice joined the chorus of artists protesting in the streets, making visual art about the election, and other kinds of work. In fact, many Oregon artists are rethinking what their work has to say in a divisive political season. We check in with a few of them.Maria Semple - 6:40The world of Maria Semple's imagination is a glowing place. Her characters rocket off on madcap adventures; they collide at high speed; they teeter on the edge of emotional cliffhangers. Some passages crackle with the comedic snap she honed writing for TV shows like “Arrested Development” and "Mad About You," but at the center of her stories are quiet emotional truths. Semple’s last novel was the New York Times best-seller “Where’d You Go, Bernadette?” — a merry chase on the trail of a formidable heroine. This year she’s back with another kind of caper, "Today Will Be Different.”Alexander Chee - 21:28Alexander Chee’s new book, “The Queen of the Night,” is a waltz through a kaleidoscopic 19th-century world of opera, romance and intrigue that the New York Times called a "post modern bodice ripper." It follow the journey of a 19th-century American girl from a circus to a brothel to the service of France's empress to the glamorous life of a star soprano. Chee tells us how he interwove his own characters with historic giants of France’s Second Empire, like Verdi, famous courtesans and the Emperor Napoleon the Third, as well as his own journey from boy soprano to novelist.Rabih Alameddine - 34:48Rabih Alameddine possesses the kind of multifaceted mind we all aspire to. His career has spanned engineering, painting, and writing, and his six books keenly bridge the Middle East and the West, religion and sexuality, history and pop culture. In "The Angel of History," Alameddine mixes many different currents to tell the story of a young Yemini-born gay man who weathers San Francisco’s AIDS epidemic through an unusual relationship with Satan and a gaggle of saints. Alameddine talks about the gray areas between good and evil, Satan as a protagonist, and the importance of remembering the past, particularly the hardest moments, in order to move into the future.

Were you at Waterloo? I have been at Waterloo. 'Tis no matter what you do, If you were at Waterloo. Thus a little ditty that appeared in the United Service Gazette, thirty years after the Battle of Waterloo was fought on June 18, 1815. It was the third day of a series of battles fought between the Emperor Napoleon of France, newly returned from exile, and an Allied Coalition led by Britain's Arthur Wellesley, the Duke of Wellington, and Prussia's Gebhard von Blücher, Prince von Wahlstatt. Since yesterday was the 251st anniversary of the battle, it's appropriate that we pull from the archives a conversation of more than a year ago. In it I re-fight the Battle of Waterloo with Gareth Glover, a retired naval officer dedicated to the study of the land campaigns of the British Army in the Napoleonic Wars. Gareth is a model of lucidity, but even more a model of archival energy. Since his retirement he has specialized in finding source after source that were hiding in plain sight in public archives, as well as tracing the location of sources rather better hidden. In his book Waterloo: Myth and Reality, he wrote a meticulous reappraisal of the momentous battle that discovers that many of the things that historians, writers, and even veterans of the battle thought they knew about Waterloo just aren't so. Many of the other books in the last year simply repeated and repeated those myths; Glover does something different. I should add that I first learned of Gareth Glover from Adrian Goldsworthy, who lives near Glover in South Wales. Goldsworthy blogs here. Last week he and I recorded a conversation on Julius Caesar and his commentaries on the Gallic Wars that will be "broadcast" in two weeks time. Until then, enjoy! Again! For Further Investigation Gareth Glover, Waterloo: Myth and Reality The Gareth Glover Collection: Original Source Material from the Napoleonic Wars, 1793-1815 The strategic situation facing Napoleon (at Wikipedia, so caveat emptor) The Waterloo Campaign (at Wikipedia; see above)  

(Christine) What happens when one of the most powerful men in Europe ends your marriage? What do you do when you're replaced as Empress of France? In this episode, we delve into Josephine Bonaparte’s life as the ex-wife of Emperor Napoleon.

Swan-Brotherby Gabriel MurrayThe—woman—took snuff.  "Good morning, Captain," she said, Capitaine in her accent.  "This is a colder day than I imagined."  She looked out over the swells, her mannish periwig bobbing as she tilted her head up to regard the horizon.  "Do you know, I hardly expected to see it."Gregory Everett clasped his hands behind his back.  "Your Captain did the correct thing," he said.He had.  Galatea's American captain had struck colours almost as soon as the Indefatigable beat to quarters.  If he hadn't Gregory would have sent him to the bottom of the sea.  Gregory had no way of knowing that the privateer Galatea carried but one petty sorceress, not one of Bonaparte's magi that could kill him and his men with an incantation and a splinter of Indefatigable's hull.  He'd have sunk her.Full transcript appears under the cut.----more----[Music plays]Hello! Welcome to GlitterShip episode 12 for July 9th, 2015. I'm your host, Keffy, and I'm super excited to be sharing this story with you.Our story for today is "Swan-Brother" by Gabriel Murray.Gabriel Murray lives in New York City with two cats and a pianist.  His reviews and stories have appeared in Strange Horizons, We See A Different Frontier: An Anthology of Postcolonial Speculative Fiction, Ideomancer, and Daily Science Fiction.  He can be found at http://orestesdrunk.wordpress.com and @orestesdrinking. He is currently working on his first novel, which is a Regency fantasy about families and bad decisions.Our reader this week is Alasdair Stuart, the host of Pseudopod. He also writes reviews and blogs at http://alasdairstuart.com and can be found on Twitter at @AlasdairStuart.Swan-Brotherby Gabriel MurrayThe—woman—took snuff.  "Good morning, Captain," she said, Capitaine in her accent.  "This is a colder day than I imagined."  She looked out over the swells, her mannish periwig bobbing as she tilted her head up to regard the horizon.  "Do you know, I hardly expected to see it."Gregory Everett clasped his hands behind his back.  "Your Captain did the correct thing," he said.He had.  Galatea's American captain had struck colours almost as soon as the Indefatigable beat to quarters.  If he hadn't Gregory would have sent him to the bottom of the sea.  Gregory had no way of knowing that the privateer Galatea carried but one petty sorceress, not one of Bonaparte's magi that could kill him and his men with an incantation and a splinter of Indefatigable's hull.  He'd have sunk her.Wisely, Galatea had struck her colours.  The sorceress tucked her snuffbox back into her pocket and went about the fastidious business of dusting off her fingers."Well, I'm happy that he did," she said.  "As here I am.  And here you are.  Thank you for your hospitality, Captain."He inclined his head without looking at her and went back to studying the water's hue."Does a Navyman really face a court-martial for every time he strikes his colours?" the Québécoise mused with a dusty little sniff.  "What a curious custom.""It deters cowardice," said Gregory, of no mood to humour her."Have you ever struck your colours, Captain Everett?"In truth, at eight-and-twenty he'd not seen enough action for that.  Even happening on Galatea had been by accident.  "I've not been in that position," he said.  "I beg your pardon, have you been to breakfast?""Oh, yes.  I've no fortitude when it comes to eggs."  She smiled at her own charmless joke.  "Captain, I'm afraid I haven't come up to make small-talk.  I have a proposition."He glanced up at the grey-cast sky.  "Have you, then?""It's very fortunate that you've picked me up, after a certain fashion," she went on.  "You see, I do have an appointment in London.""How interesting."  Gregory looked down at her again.  "You are my prisoner.  You're welcome to go wherever you please after the Admiralty sorts you out in Spain.""My hearing could take place in England," she pointed out."It could."The sorceress sighed, found a cherry-wood pipe in another pocket.  "You strike me as the sort of man who dislikes a bribe," she said.  "All the same.  Is there nothing I might offer you as a gentlewoman magician?"He was ready to set her down sharply.  When he turned to do so, however, she was looking at him slant.  "You're a soldier.  Is there nothing you want back," she said, "that you've lost?"Something about the wig brought him over.  It was out of style.  He was given to trusting people of little personal charm.  His first lieutenant, Masters, was charmless; he was charmless himself, of course, no natural leader of men; but Masters was shrewder than Shylock, and Gregory Everett had a level head that had managed to remain on his shoulders.  The French war sat in the hands of men in unfashionable periwigs.Gregory tilted his tricorne down and lowered his voice in confidence to say: "Speak to me when we land.  If you'll excuse me, madam."When Gregory played soldiers as a boy, he'd pretend they were dolls.  He wanted a baby.  He wasn't supposed to, he was aware.  He wasn't supposed to not want them.  He was supposed to want victory, a ship-of-the-line, and to see the edges of the Earth, like Father.  He wanted those too, of course, but mostly he wanted a baby.Gregory Everett still wanted a baby.  His fiancée, his cousin Clare, was back in Dover; he wrote her daily, which his first captain had praised, and sometimes he pictured her pretty freckled face in a bonnet.  But then he would picture his own face and then imagine how their son would look.  Soon when the war was done and he'd go back home to Dover and start his family, finally, finally.He wanted a child like his brother.  Young Richard, nine or so, was perfect: tall and strapping already, but also sweet-faced and pretty like Mama, and unlike other boys his age he loved to learn his letters.  He sang his French alphabet back to his governess in his boy soprano and made all the women clap their hands in delight.  In his head at night Gregory preserved that Richard alive.  That Richard came in for supper.  That Richard always ran to show Gregory his watercolours first.  That Richard begged to go all the way to Portsmouth with Gregory when he left for his first commission, at fourteen, and sobbed into Gregory's blue coat."You're going to die," he cried with horrible ten-year-old candour while Father looked on in embarrassment; "you're going to die and I won't have a brother anymore.""You're being silly," had said Gregory, mortified and on the verge of tears himself.  He put his chin on the top of Richard's sandy head and gave his shoulder a rough squeeze.  "Hush.  I'm not going to die.  You're making a scene."To his surprise, the Québécoise sorceress took a drink with him at the officers' pub when they put in.  She daubed at the edges of her mouth with her handkerchief.  "The Spanish do not understand beer," she said with diffidence.  "Let's walk, Captain."The idea of offering his arm to someone in a waistcoat struck Gregory as too peculiar.  Instead, he offered her his coat as they ducked out of the smoke and into the dusk.She shrugged it on over her square shoulders.  "Oh, do bring a rifle," she said, lighting her pipe.  "And bayonet."Gregory's eyebrows nearly met his hairline, but he agreed to go back for one.They must have made a curious sight, the two of them.  It put him at a discomfort even after they strolled to the river, far from curious eyes.  Gregory knew how he looked at men who walked out onto the shore with women after dark.  On his back he could feel the weight of his own contemptuous stare.He shouldered his rifle into a more comfortable position on his back.  "I want you," he said, low, in French, "to bring my brother Richard back to me."The sorceress's eyelashes twitched as she glanced at him sideways.  Her pipe glowed; he could smell the bitterness of her tobacco."He's my brother," he said.  "I want him back.  Deliver him to me and I will take you to England.""I'm afraid it's not going to occur in that order," she said with a chuckle.  Her Québécoise accent was even thicker in French.He gave her a look that indicated what he thought of her levity.  She waved her hand.  "All right.  Come.  Walk further with me," she said, extending an arm he couldn't refuse.She led him to a bend in the river where birds paddled sedately, three swans and an array of ducks that huddled together at their approach.  The white shapes of the swans were still.  Asleep, surely.  Swans were headstrong and irascible animals.  He looked to her for direction."Take one," she said in English again.  "You've got to do this part yourself, I'm afraid.""You can't be serious.""I am serious, Captain," she said.  "Returning what's been lost is a bloody affair, and not easy, I'm afraid.  And—frowned upon.  Nevertheless, I’ve an appointment in London.  I'll do it.  But you'll be needing one of those birds."Gregory hesitated, then unslung his rifle and loaded it up without a word.  He shouldered the stock and closed an eye.  He was English.  There was something crude to him in killing a swan."Alive," she added."Alive?"  He frowned.  "Is wounding it acceptable?""Provided it'll live a few minutes at least," she allowed.He squinted through the sight again.  "It'll be loud," he muttered, already thinking of his advantage there.  He trained the barrel up to the sky and pulled the trigger.  At the shot's crack, the sorceress flinched and the birds took wing in a startled flurry.This bit was facile.  All gentlemen learned to hunt.  Gregory eyed the greatest white shape as he re-loaded and aimed above the breast, at an outstretched wing, and fired again.Blood was stark on a swan.  The downed animal thrashed about calling on the ground, splintering its wing further, no doubt.  He turned up his nose and set off towards it while the Québécoise sorceress followed behind, rummaging in her bag for a few odd objects: a flint, a candle, a crumpled-up paper.  "Do hold it in place," she was saying; he held his nose and seized the wretch by the neck.Even weakened it struggled, like Proteus.  He glanced up at her.  She was fussing with the paper.  "Muzzle the damned thing, if you'd be so kind," he snapped and glared at her until she undid her belt and bound it gingerly around the bird’s beak.  It was little effort to hold it down after that.  Sweat still beaded on his forehead and rolled through his hair.Her wig was askew.  She straightened it before crouching down next to him and the hissing bird.  "Right, then," she said.  "You'll be needing to skin it.""Skin it," he repeated at the bottom of his voice."Alive," she said again, screwing up her nose at the necessary distastefulness of a magician's work.  She also found what she was looking for in her bag: a tanner's knife.  "It's not squeamishness stops me doing it, in this case."  He must've looked doubtful, for she huffed and went on, "You're not asking me for a parlour-trick, Captain Everett.  This is exceptionally personal.  Do you want Lieutenant Everett returned to you or don't you?"It was the damned animal that was biting his temper down to the quick, having to hold the damned animal down. He said what he shouldn't have.  "More than anything," he ground out.  "More than anyone.  If you trick me—"She sniffed, not deigning to his insult, and handed him the knife.  He shifted his grip on the wounded swan, which was thrashing less and less, and tried to recall what he knew of skinning.It died not long into the process, but not as shortly as he might have liked.  When he was finished he had a useless, gory coat of feathers, a steaming carcass, and a soiled uniform.  He grimaced.  "Do your spell," he said.  "It's growing late.""I already have," replied the sorceress, and when he looked up at her, she indeed had her items packed away into her bag again, all but the sticky knife.  She looked the same, if a bit blanched, with soot around her fingers.She brushed that off; she'd burnt the paper, he remembered, and said words.  "Keep the skin.  Keep the skin and don't destroy it.  Those are the only conditions."  She coughed and reached for something in her pocket—snuff.  Of course.  "Pardon me.  The number who can't manage that much, well, you'd be surprised."Gregory Everett held up the malodorous pelt with the tips of his fingers like a house-proud woman with a mangled mouse.  "I'll have it tanned," he said under his breath, "Dear God.""No."  The force in her voice came from some wellspring he hadn't seen in her before; he looked up at the flinty black eyes of a magician.  "That wouldn't work.  Only like that.  You'll keep it in its original form, or you won't keep him."He glared, but buried his fingernails in the swan’s pelt.  Satisfied that he understood, she took her snuff.  "You've nothing to worry about," she said with that same fussy self-assurance that'd convinced him in the first place.  "Hold a man's skin and your claim is first, Captain, over God's, Death's, and his own.  It's done.  I am a sorceress in the employ of Emperor Napoleon the First," she said with another chuckle.  "My soul is spoken for.  God help yours."Gregory ignored everything that she said.  His tired mind had drifted to something else.  "Where did you learn my brother's rank?" he asked after a moment's silence."You have his cameo in your great cabin," was her affable response.  She snapped her snuffbox shut.  "At least I presume that's him.  He looks like you."He came home for the winter holidays.  So did Richard.  The crusted swanskin was bundled up in their father's cellar, gathering flies and putrefying.  Gregory was sitting by the fire hand in hand with Clare when Richard strolled through the sitting-room door with his rifleman's coat all buttoned up and dropped into an armchair.  "Of course you've already taken the warm seats," he complained with a theatrical slouch, kicking out his long legs.  "Et tu, sister?  A woman's heart is a cold and cruel thing, you know.  Cold and cruel."Richard held this dramatic expression for a moment or two longer before he looked sidelong at Gregory and Clare and grinned.  Clare, for her part, still had her mouth hanging open.  So did Gregory.She remembered herself first.  "Happy Michaelmas, Richard," she said with a pretty smile, smoothing her pinafore.  "I hadn't thought that—"  She caught herself, always polite, looked at Gregory, was reassured by his nod and his grip on her hand.  Clare smiled again and went on, "I hadn't thought that Lord Wellington could spare you.""Nor I.  Good tidings all around this Advent," Richard said, yawning.  His voice was as lively and clear as it had ever been, though his soprano days were long finished.  He looked tidy and tired.  His cheeks were rosy like a Botticelli.  "You too, Greg.""You're late again," was all Gregory could think to say.Richard sighed with a whoof.  "You're always on about that," he said.  "Dear Father: I saw Greg today after four years' time.  'You're late again,' he said."Gregory smiled in spite of himself as an unnerved shiver scuttled up his spine and down each of his arms.  He felt Clare's soft hand still resting on his, relying on his strength.  "Well," he said, "you're not as late as usual."It was true: Richard wasn't.  Clare giggled.Richard laughed and kicked him in the foot.  His hair was a little unruly, even tied back; little bits and pieces of Richard were always escaping any efforts at civilisation, no matter how one tried.  He was always sunny, even when he was unhappy in truth, but hadn't been this cheerful since he was ten, not that Greg could recall.  Not to Greg.  "You horrible man," he said.  "You're always the same.  You make General Soult look like our Granny."Mother cried when she saw Richard.  She'd always loved him best.  Losing him had snapped her heart like an icicle into ten irreparable parts, and now she just cried into his shoulder.  Gregory didn't begrudge her feelings, watching them from the doorway with his hand on the frame: who wouldn't love Richard best?  He was a clever, charming, beautiful boy.  Girls fell all over that rakish half-smile—Clare was practically the only one who hadn't, and thank God for that.  Gregory wasn't jealous of Mother's sentiment: if anything he envied her easier way with Richard, the way she could just wrap her arms around him and he'd accept her embrace.  Trying to hold Richard was like holding a changing naiad in your arms; how did she do it, even for a moment?He supposed he'd never tried.  He put his arm around Richard when they were walking away down the hall and said stiffly, "I'm glad that you're well."He waited for his brother to raise an eyebrow and say something ironical, or laugh and shrug him off, but Richard just put his head on Gregory's shoulder for a moment.  Richard was taller, now, and lanky.  Richard had been right about one thing, Gregory had to admit.  He really would have been eternally hitting his head on things in the Navy."I'm glad that I'm in Dover," Richard said.  The same peace-making smile that had carried him through Father's absences and Mother's sadnesses was on his face, but his voice was a little doleful.  By paternal or maternal instinct, Gregory pulled him aside in the hallway and into a hug, putting both his arms around his shoulders like Richard had skinned his knee.  This was awkwarder now that Richard had inches of height on him.  Gregory didn't care.  He held Richard tightly, as painfully tight as he'd squeezed him that day in Portsmouth."I'm sorry, Greg," Richard was saying into the air next to his head.  "I really am sorry."  He sounded like he was apologising for being late to supper on Michaelmas."It's all right," Gregory said into Richard's hair.  "Mother's happy to have you back.  She doesn't care anymore."  They didn't speak of Father; Father was away.Richard bought Clare pink ribbons on the boardwalk while Gregory sat with his mother.  Clare blushed in a rare moment of delight at her future brother-in-law—they hadn't got on, usually, she was a demure young woman—and even laughed high when he bound one up in her hair.  She was only twenty-one, after all.  Standing together they were a pretty sight.  Gregory admired it like a landowner.  His wife-to-be with his brother, the future godfather of his child.  Next spring he'd be wed to Clare, too, God willing, and he would have that child for Richard to christen, and he'd have everything.  And surely Father would understand by then.The skin on the back of his arm itched.  He scratched it behind his back, through his Navy coat, and took his mother for a turn about the cobbled square.When he had a minute alone with Richard he chanced to bring up what he'd been intending.  Gregory hesitated even so, even in Richard's good humour and gratitude at being with his family this holiday, even then.  He remembered Richard's first reactions to the subject.  Lord, they'd been upsetting.  Gregory nearly reddened recalling that supper with his parents and Richard even now.  It was dreadful.  Everything was spoilt.  Richard had spoilt everything.  Sometimes he was still that boy, that horrible wilful boy.But: he was older now.  Gregory would chance it.  "Irene," he said.  "I'm sure that she'd still have you if you'd still have her.  She does care for you."Richard frowned and put his head on one side.  Irene was their cousin too, once more removed than Clare.  She was perfect for Richard, Gregory was certain of it, so spirited and bookish.  He'd always been utterly certain of it.  Gregory was happy with the match.  He could've chosen it himself.  Everything would be perfect if Richard married Irene.  They'd have the loveliest children.Even so, Gregory braced himself for what he might say, even if he said it gently.  But he did not say that, not even gently: Richard said, "Do you think so?"Gregory crossed his arms behind his back and smiled uneasily.Among Father's pinot grigiers and his chardonnays, in the cellar no one touched when Father was away, Gregory rummaged in one of the casks on his hands and knees.  This was absurd.  He felt like he was playing sardines.The skin was easy to find, at any rate.  It smelled slightly less than before, but it looked disgusting when he dragged it out, like a half-rotten creature washed up on some Spanish beach.  He suppressed a retch just over that.  It'd curled up around the edges.  It barely suggested a bird at all, least of all a swan.  The resemblance was gone everywhere but the neck, which he'd slit the skin from almost tenderly with the tip of the tanning knife.He grasped the brittle stained feathers in his fingers, disgusted and fond all at the same time; it repulsed him and, the Devil take it, he was growing attached.  Maybe the sorceress had done something to him too.  He dismissed the notion as the shadow-boxing it was.All the same, he sat with his legs crossed on the cold cellar floor and the swanskin in his lap.  He found it comforting to have it there.  It was comforting to know where it was, of course, given all the sorceress had cautioned, but—there was something comforting about it, too.  God, it was perverse.  He was embarrassed at his own attachment to it, just as he was embarrassed by how he looked sitting there with a rotting feather pelt falling apart in his lap.Burying his fingers in the pinions made his breath come slower and calmer.  There was something logical about it.  It was being degraded the way that matter degraded over time and in a cool place, sealed away from rats."Greg," he heard Richard's voice above, walking over the hatch to the wine-cellar again without noticing.  "Greg?  Where's Greg gotten off to?  Ah, never mind!  Clare, we'll go without him; he'll be sorry when he comes back."  His harmonious laugh travelled off with him out the door.  Gregory closed his eyes.Seated in the drawing-room's northernmost bay window, Gregory had taught Richard his sums.  The governess was always better with the letters, and so was Richard, quickly enough, but Gregory's head had always been superior for numbers.  He took pleasure in it, placing hand over spindly little hand to render the curves of the numeral 3.  Back then Richard had even attended to what he was saying, even though it wasn't very interesting, even when Gregory wasn't any good at making it interesting.  He never was.  Clare would teach the children, he'd decided.Seated in the drawing-room's northernmost bay window, Gregory sat his brother down with him now, as men, and chose to broach once more the matter of Irene.  There was so much bubbling in his mind now that he was dying to say: have you written to Father?  What of your post with Wellington, are you considering your career now too?  What is he like?  Does he need an aide-de-camp?  Shall someone write to him?  But he schooled himself, restrained himself, and settled on little cousin Irene.  A tidy, consistent topic.  He'd ascertain if Richard's mind had truly changed.  All in order.Always, always Richard was faster than him: he leaned on his elbow with his chin in his long, spidery hand.  "Is this about Irene again?" he prompted.  "Or should I be calling her Miss Tracy now?  I suppose she's not a child any more.  Lud, though, 'Miss Tracy.'  I've known Irene since she was born.  We've known Clare too.  It's so silly.  It's all silly."Normally Gregory viewed formality as the only buoy in a vast black sea, and stood upon it accordingly, but in the case of Clare Everett and Irene Tracy, he had to agree with Richard.  He supposed this was incidental.  He and Richard had never agreed upon much, as men, except by accident.  "She's Irene," he agreed.  "She'd be hurt to hear otherwise, and that settles it, I believe.  What of her?" he asked, and couldn't resist, sardonic, "Have your second thoughts come back for Michaelmas too, then?"Richard toyed with a strand of his hair.  He was an insufferable peacock, Gregory's brother, and he could never make up his mind whether he liked the colour of his ash-blond hair or despaired that it wasn't brighter.  That was Richard.  Mourning for golden hair, of all things.  "Do you know, I don't know," he said with a frown.  "I was opposed to it, I won't deny that.""You were."  Gregory gave the ceiling a look."I was opposed to it.  Irene is—""Well, do you love her?" Gregory prompted with poor hopes, but hopes nevertheless.  Four years ago he wouldn't even have asked that question.  Maybe, though, maybe Richard had—reconsidered his, his feelings, in some way.  It was worth hoping for.Richard frowned.  "I don't know," he said.  "Maybe.  I care a bit for her, you know, I've just—known her for such a time, is all."That unnerved Gregory, for some reason.  That of all things unnerved him.  He must've shown it in his face, as Richard tilted his head at him.  "Is something the matter?""You aren't going to ingratiate yourself to me by lying about Irene," said Gregory, before he could stop himself.  "I've run out of favours to give you."Richard's eyes widened.  He had big eyes, which still rendered him childlike at his age and height.  When he looked stung, openly, like this, it was impossible to not feel guilty.  "I'm not lying," he said.  "I'm really not.  I just don't know the contents of my heart."When Richard was born Gregory climbed up to his crib and stood on the edge to look at him when he burbled and cried.  He'd never loved a kitten.  He didn't even like kittens; they were fast and had sharp little claws and they didn't care for him at all.  He'd never loved a thing, not really, before Richard.  Richard was his brother, no one else's.  He'd never had a thing that was just his before, either.He taught him sums at the bay window.  He patched up all his scrapes from trees and kittens, which Richard always loved better than he did.  He picked out things for him to wear, until he was a midshipman and couldn't see Richard any more.  He wrote him every day, even when Richard forgot to write back.  He never, ever forgot about him, not when Father forgot about them both, not when they were young men; he held fast, and he—he meant well, he knew better—and he feared anyway the day when Richard wouldn't want him anymore.Only one vase, ever: there was just one fragile thing Richard ever broke.  He wasn't a breaking sort of boy.  He was five, he shattered mother's china, and ran away in alarm.  Gregory caught him in the hall.  "It's all right," he hissed with a hold on Richard's sleeves. "Oh, for God's sake, do you think I'm going to hurt you?  I'm not.  Pull yourself together."Gregory interlaced their fingers and fisted Richard's hand in his in a deathly grip.  He was always holding him that way.  This Richard let him.The Admiralty helped him in Portsmouth.  He was Captain Everett, after all, set to become a Commodore, and if he looked a bit more drawn than usual when he asked questions at the offices, they likely assumed he was busy.  The Everetts were busy often: the father and the elder son, anyway.  Not the younger.  No one spoke of the younger.He found the address and pounded on the double mahogany doors with one fist, then the other, then two until the sorceress called Marceline Despourrins finally admitted him.  She looked quite taken aback.  She was in her housecoat, which was terribly improper, but he'd taken to thinking of her as an irritating, elderly gentleman with a very particular set of skills and wasn't interested in changing his conclusion.  She looked less scandalised than just surprised by the hour, though, and admitted him to her study while she brewed tea."You've travelled a ways," Mlle Despourrins observed.  "Oh, dear.  Please have a seat.""That—is not my brother," Gregory said in a rattle.Mlle Despourrins furrowed her brow.  "Oh, dear," she said again, not much upset, and went back to the tea.Later she gestured to a chair for the fifth time and he ignored her and leaned on her desk with both hands, staring into the knots in the lacquered wood.  "I don't pass judgement, Captain.  I'm a mere practitioner.  It would have been one thing if he were simply dead," she said softly behind him, between his back and the snapping fire.  "Death is a place far away.  Estrangement is another thing entirely."Gregory scrutinised his hands.  "Estrangement is not the word I would have chosen," he said."Well."  She sniffed.  "That's even worse, then, isn't it?"He was quiet for a while, knuckles clenching and unclenching over the hard edge.  She came around to her chair and left him be, stirring herself a cup of orangeish tea and tutting over the heat."My brother is half a Republican," Gregory burst out like he had a thrashing beast in his arms again.  "He's sick of the war already; he dislikes anything with too much blood," he said with a snort, "or too much early rising.  He hates Wellington.  He calls him Lord Arthur.  He wants a captaincy like he wants a plague of boils.  He wants a career like he wants the bloody clap."Mlle Despourrins stirred her tea and looked down and away.Gregory heaved a horrible, deep breath.  His voice had risen without his realising.  He loathed his shouting voice.  It was so shrill.  "My brother is a God-damned sodomite," he hissed between his teeth.  "And he flaunts it.   He'll never marry Irene.  Not in a thousand years.  Father turned his back on him in shame."  So had he.The sorceress was listening.  Gregory had the impression that she'd tolerated more than one tirade from a client in her time, and had learnt to listen, lest she be asked to repeat anything back.  She yawned and, when she seemed sure he was finished—the word "sodomite" gave her no more trouble than "Republican"—she gave a nod.  "I doubt this will reassure you," she said, "but I do know of the second Everett son and his—escapades.  Word does, er, travel."He was tempted to throttle her for the way she said escapades.  He shook his head instead.  "My brother is his own man," said Gregory Everett with love and contempt.  "He'll have everyone know it.  My brother."  It caught in the back of his throat like a bone.  "My brother hates me."Marceline Despourrins took snuff and looked at him with pity through her bent pince-nez.  "Then what on Earth," said she, "could I have possibly done for you?"What was left of the swan burned slow in the hearth, filling the drawing-room with acrid-smelling smoke.  Gregory tossed it in when the clock struck one and sat in the chair there until it struck two and he was sure it was all burnt away.  He had a day's growth of stubble.  He didn't know when he fell asleep there, exactly, his head at an uncomfortable cramping angle.He didn't know what time it was when his brother found him, either, but he woke to the sound of his footsteps. He knew the sound.  He would never be able to sleep through those footsteps.Gregory straightened up to the best of his ability as Richard regarded him with curiosity, then shrugged and took a seat in the bay window, kicking his feet up.  The oil in the Dover house lamps was expensive and did not burn out quickly.  No one had put out the lights in this room, so Richard's face was lit well as he closed his eyes and nested himself in the cushions.  His boots were still on, resting heel-down on Mother's embroidered upholstery.Gregory looked at him a little longer than was polite.  Richard smiled back, not kindly.  It was that pretty, armoured smile he put on whenever someone found him wanting.  This was Richard, after all, to the fey tips of his fingers.  He wasn't grown-up after all.  He was young.  He'd been in the Peninsula four years and he was so young.  He'd stopped writing to Father in the first, when Father never wrote him back.  He'd never written to Gregory at all.He tipped his head back on the cushions but Gregory could see the tension in the arch of his back, the way he looked at his older brother like a distrustful animal.  It made Gregory sick.  It was the very last thing he wanted in the world."Well, should I say something?" Richard interrupted his thoughts.  His voice was low and feline and had new gravel in it.  "I mean, this is dreadfully awkward.  What should we talk about?  The weather?"Gregory closed his eyes."Your wedding?" Richard went on idly.  He really was self-possessed.  With the casual way he went on anyone else might've believed he didn't fear God or his brother.  "That's in May, isn't it?  May, that's a good month for wedding.  For being wed.  You should move it up to April: decreases your odds of being sunk in the meantime by a fifth.""Shut up, Richard," said Gregory for the hundred thousandth time.Richard coughed.  It took Gregory a second to realise it was a laugh.  "I love you too, Greg.  Did you miss me at all?"When he closed his eyes he didn't know what he'd do to his brother.  When he opened them again he'd taken command of his nerves again.  He looked steadily at the fire.  That was what people, Father, Indefatigable relied upon him for: steadiness and a firm hand over his own baser nature, and theirs.  The world's axis spun on charmless men.  He opened his mouth to answer Richard's question.  The truth was coiled somewhere in his stomach, treacherous and waiting to strike; he knew it, God knew it, in his lowest days he feared Richard knew it too.  He wouldn't let it master him."You have to be gone before Father sees you," he said instead.  "You can't very well put him in that position.""I know.  Don't fret so much," said Richard.  "I won't make a scene."END"Swan-Brother" was originally published by Ideomancer in March, 2013.This recording is a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license which means you can share it with anyone you’d like, but please don’t change or sell it. Our theme is “Aurora Borealis” by Bird Creek, available through the Google Audio Library.Thanks for listening, and I’ll have another story for you on July 16th.[Music plays out]

(Christine) As his brother Napoleon rose to power in France, Jerome Bonaparte was across the ocean in Baltimore, Maryland. While there the young Bonaparte did what many men do, he married a beautiful woman. Unfortunately his union with Miss Elizabeth Patterson was not welcomed by Napoleon, who had other plans for his little brother. In this episode we’ll examine what happened in Baltimore and how Emperor Napoleon’s disapproval changed the future of the newlywed couple.

Friends and colleagues remember Zoltán Kodály for the tall tales he used to share at the local pub. Most of these stories were obvious exaggerations, and some might have been outright lies. But one of Kodály’s stories actually seems plausible: he said this particular composition was inspired by the sound of the clock he heard at Viennese court during Emperor Napoleon’s regime. More info about Kodaly and the Musical Clock: http://www.classicsforkids.com/composers/bio.asp?id=32 Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGm__iVsaNI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsdi1LTK7HQ http://filesource.abacast.com/king/music/exploringmusic/3133196.mp3

I. Introduction: How Will You Save Up for Retirement? We're looking this morning at Philippians 4:10-19 and zeroing in on the expression that Paul gives in verse 17, he's concerned about what may be credited to your account. Two men owned farms side by side, one of them was a bitter atheist and the other was a committed Christian. Constantly annoyed at the Christian for his trust in God the atheist said to him, one winter, "Let's plant our crops as usual this spring, each the same number of acres. You pray to your God and I'll curse Him, then come October let's see who has the bigger crop." Well, when October came the atheist was delighted because his crop was clearly larger than the Christians. "See you fool," he taunted, "What do you have to say for your God now?" The Christian farmer replied, "My God doesn't settle all His accounts in October." That's profound isn't it? If for this life only we have trusted in Christ we are above all men to be pitied. God doesn't settle all His accounts here and now and that's especially true when it comes to the issue of money, isn't it? Every year billions and billions of dollars are invested in various retirement accounts by Americans who seek to be financially astute and lay up financial resources for themselves for their retirement. I thought about that recently and it occurred to me that in a spiritual sense I am a retirement counselor. I'm just looking further down the road than those retirement counselors are looking. I would like you to consider your eternal estate. I would like you to think about what you're doing with your money from an eternal perspective. Are you investing properly in your eternal retirement? Are you dealing with finances as a faithful steward of our Lord Jesus Christ, that's the question before us. Randy Alcorn in his book, The Treasure Principle said this, "What's the biggest misconception that Christians have about giving? That when we give money away to a church or ministry or to help the needy it's gone. While we hope others will benefit from it, we're quite sure we won't. We think we're divesting ourselves of money disassociating from it. Once it leaves our hands we imagine it has no connection to us, no future implications relevant to our lives, we couldn't be more wrong. What we think we own will rudely be taken from us, some of it before we die and anything that's left will be taken the moment we die. But now is our window of opportunity not to divest ourselves of money but to invest it in heaven. We don't have to have everything taken from us, we can give it before disaster or death strike, now is our chance to give what we can't keep to gain what we can never lose." Randy Alcorn is right. I think we have that sense that if we're going to give it away to the Lord we'll never see it again, quite the opposite is true, if we don't give it away we will never see it again. I've been to a number of places on mission trips and one of the interesting rituals that comes is the changing of money, whether at the airport or at some bank in the country that you go to. Right after Jesus' triumphal entry immediately after Matthew's account, the first thing He did after the praise and Hosanna shouts, and people expecting Him to take up His throne immediately, He went into the temple and made a whip and drove out all of the money changers. Now, what are the money changers? So money changers were people who sat in the temple and exchanged different currencies for the temple shekel. The outlying currencies out in the other countries and districts could not be used in the temple, rather it had to be the temple shekel. There were a variety of currencies but only one could be used at the temple and it occurred to me that in the same way only one currency can be used in heaven and that's heavenly currency, this earthly stuff holds no truck there, we can't take it with us it must be exchanged. How can we exchange our money? Well, we exchange it by giving it away by faith to the Lord's work and it seems to me that Paul is very concerned about that issue when it comes to the Philippians. II. What the Gift Signified About the Philippians The Philippians have sent him some money through Epaphroditus, he is writing them here in Philippians a thank you letter, it's more than that as we have seen but it is at least that a thank you letter for the money that they sent through Epaphroditus. He wants them to know that he has received the money, he's very grateful for the money, he's glad to have taken it but he wants them to know as a good pastor and also the one who led them to faith in Christ, how he thinks about money, he wants to train them also to think properly about money too. He's concerned about their eternal retirement, I don't think he would have used that language but he is concerned about it. He's concerned about their eternal rewards, he's concerned about what may be credited to their account and so he says in Verse 10, "I rejoiced greatly in the Lord, that at last you have renewed your concern for me, indeed you have been concerned but you had no opportunity to show it." He says, literally, "I rejoiced" because he's thinking about the moment I believe, it doesn't come across in the NIV but in a sharper translation, it is a past tense. He said, "I rejoiced when I saw the money." But I want you to know it wasn't the way you would think, I'm not rejoicing because of the money itself. Now, the last few weeks, we've looked in deeply into his attitude of abiding Christian contentment, it's not because he now has a bunch of money that he's happy and content not at all, he's got a more spiritual mindset than that. He knows enough that even this substantial gift will someday be gone, that's not what he puts his trust in. It's not like, "At least I'll eat well until it's gone," that's not his concern, not at all, because he has learned to be content whatever the circumstances, living in plenty or not, well fed or hungry, whatever, he can do everything through Him who gives him strength. And so the Apostle Paul says, "I'm not happy for that reason, I'm content for something else," and so we've seen Paul's attitude of Christian contentment. What he is concerned about more is what the gift signifies about the spiritual health of the Philippians, that's what causes him to rejoice. He's delighted in this, put simply, to Paul it was more than anything, proof that the Philippians were still walking with Christ. It was proof that they had been genuinely converted. Basic Goodness and Generosity Now, he talks about some aspects of their giving, and there's some general characteristics about it. He says, first of all, it was good of them. Look at verse 14, he said, "It was good of you to share in my troubles." The Greek word for good, "kalos", is a wonderful word, frequently translated, "Beautiful." Generous giving is ethically beautiful, it's attractive. Later, he calls it a fragrant offering to God. It's a pleasing thing to be generous. The act of sacrificial love was a good thing, it was morally beautiful. Freedom From Materialism and Selfish Greed Also, he sees in this gift freedom from materialism and greed, you can't be generous like this and give this kind of money away if you're enslaved to the idolatry of greed and materialism, and so their lavish generosity shows that they're free from these gods which so conquer so many people. Concern for a Christian Brother in Need Also, it shows that they have a concern, generally, for a Christian brother in need. It says in 1 John that if anyone sees a brother in need and has the material resources to help them, but has no pity on him, how can he say the love of God is in him? He's closed up his heart. Putting it more positively, the evidence of Christian conversion, of regeneration, is an open-handed, generous attitude toward the brothers and sisters in Christ. And so Paul was in need. The way it worked back then is if you were in prison or in chains, those on the outside had to take care of you financially, they had to provide for you. You were somewhat like a beggar, even worse than a beggar, because you couldn't be out by the roads begging. And so you had to have a good family network, you had to have friends that would be concerned for you. If you didn't have that, you would starve. And they didn't care, your captors, whether you starved or not, it wasn't their responsibility to feed you. And so this is a practical concern, and the Philippians showed love for Paul in that they cared about his basic needs. And also we see a concern, generally, for a persecuted messenger of the Gospel, but it's not just general here, is it? He gets very personal. These are his friends, these are, in effect, his spiritual children, so it means a lot more to him than just the general goodness of what they've done. He reviews and renews the history of their relationship. Look again at verse 10, he says, "I rejoice greatly in the Lord that at last you have renewed your concern for me. Indeed you have been concerned, but you had no opportunity to show it." He also goes over their past history in verse 15 and 16, "Moreover, as you Philippians know, in the early days of your acquaintance with the Gospel, when I set out from Macedonia, not one church shared with me in the matter of giving and receiving except you only. For even when I was in Thessalonica, you sent me aid again and again when I was in need." So this is... These are close friends of his, this is the church that he's planted, and they have a long history of concern for him and love for him. But there's been a hiatus, there's been an interruption, they had no opportunity to help him, perhaps they didn't know where he was, or in what circumstance he was. Transportation and communication being what they were in the ancient world, it's very possible they had no idea that he was in chains. And then they finally heard, and immediately, they reached out and helped. So he says, "I'm glad that you've renewed your concern for me." He's speaking very personally about their relationship. Proof of Ongoing Progress in Christ But then he gets to the real issue, it has to do with their progress in Christ, it's proof that they are still in Christ. Now, I want you to understand carefully what I'm saying; it is impossible for somebody who is genuinely born again, who's regenerated by the Spirit, who's justified by faith, it's impossible for them to lose their salvation, it's impossible for that to happen. However, as a church planter, standing on the outside, like Paul was, looking in at the Philippians, he really doesn't know for sure if they have been genuinely converted. Remember that Judas Iscariot, for three years, deceived the other 11 apostles, they thought even the night that he went out to betray Christ that he was going out to buy more supplies for the feast. They had no idea what was in his heart, he deceived them all. And so it is possible for the apostle Paul to be deceived about what's genuinely going on in the lives of the Philippians. As he stands on the outside looking in, he is unable to be sure that they are genuinely born again. And so he's going to be waiting for some fruit, he wants to see some things back from them over a period of time. Hebrews 3:14 says, to prove the genuineness of our faith, we must keep obeying day after day, as long as it is called today. That verse says, "We have come to share in Christ if we hold firmly to the end the confidence we had at first." And so it is a long-standing perseverance in Christ that is the greatest evidence to somebody like Paul standing on the outside looking in. And so he has a great joy about this money, because it's more evidence that Christ has really worked in their lives. Whenever Paul would leave a town like Philippi, all he could do was entrust those dear ones to the Lord, that's all he could do. And so many times, you see this kind of thing. Like for example, in Acts 14:23, the churches in Lystra, Iconium and Antioch, "Paul and Barnabas," it says, "appointed elders for them in each church, and with prayer and fasting, committed them to the Lord in whom they had put their trust." Paul was an itinerant evangelist, he couldn't stay in Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch or in Philippi, he had to move on. The Lord called him to move to the next city, so all he could do was thoroughly preach the Gospel, get them ready, establish the church, and then move on, and entrust them to God. We see the same thing in Acts 20:32, "Now, I commit you to God and to the word of His grace which can build you up and give you an inheritance among those who are sanctified." That to the Ephesian elders, so he's saying, "All I can do, Ephesian elders and the Ephesian church, is commit you to God, because God is able to keep you safe, God is able to build you up." And so Paul is constantly concerned about the churches he's planted, he's wondering, in some cases, if he's wasted his time. We see this very much in 1 Thessalonians. He doesn't know exactly how the Thessalonians are reacting to the trial they're going through. They're going through severe persecution, and he's not sure whether they're going to make it or not. Remember the parable of the different soils, when the sun comes up, the plants are withered and they die because they have no root. And so now is a real testing time for the Thessalonians. So he sends Timothy, and Timothy comes back and brings a report concerning them, 1 Thessalonians 3:5 and 6, it says, "For this reason, when I could stand it no longer, I sent to find out about your faith. I was afraid that in some way the tempter might have tempted you and our efforts might have been useless. But Timothy has just now come to us from you and has brought us good news about your faith and love. He has told us that you always have pleasant memories of us and that you long to see us just as we long to see you." Now do you see that connection there at the end? Because they, the Thessalonians, love Paul, and those who preach the Gospel to them, it's strong evidence that they're still continuing in the message, do you see? Because there's a connection between the message and the messenger. So, it works also with the Philippians and their love gift to Paul. It's evidence that they're doing well, It's evidence that they're Christians. We see the same thing negatively with the Galatians. There the news is not so good because it seems they're abandoning the true faith. And he says in Galatians 4:19-20, "My dear children for whom I am again in the pains of childbirth until Christ is formed in you, how I wish I could be with you now and change my tone because I am perplexed about you." You see how concerned he is about the Galatian Church because he doesn't know what's really happening in their hearts. And so this matter of the money that was given by the Philippians is a spiritual matter to Paul, because frankly, money is a spiritual. Yes, it's physical and yes, it's material, but it's spiritual too. Ultimately: Love for Christ Himself And how you spend your money says a great deal about your relationship with Christ and so he's glad about this money. Ultimately it points back to love for Christ Himself. If you look at Verse 18, there's a sense of a sacrificial offering here. He says "I have received full payment and even more, I am amply supplied. Now that I've received from Epaphroditus the gifts you sent, they are a fragrant offering and acceptable sacrifice pleasing to God." Isn't that beautiful, that Old Testament, sacrificial language. Please do not bring a bull or goat here to First Baptist Church. We wouldn't know what to do with it. I don't have any idea. If you were to bring your first from your flock, I would say, "That's wonderful. Take it on home. We really have no place for it." But that whole language has been transferred now to the issue of money. If you want to make a sacrificial offering to God, you do it financially now. The time for blood sacrifice ended forever when Jesus gave His blood for me. But the time for sacrifice is not over. And so we have this kind of sacrificial language in verse 18. You want to make a sacrifice to God, give financially, give cheerfully, give generously, give in a faith-filled manner, that is a sacrifice. And so Paul is tying this gift ultimately back to the Philippians in their relationship with Christ, whether or not they are born again. III. Paul’s Primary Desire: Eternal Rewards for the Philippians But then he goes beyond that. He says, Okay, "I accept that you're born again, grateful for it. But now I'm looking for something more." Look at verse 17, this is Paul's primary desire at this point, eternal rewards for the Philippians. Verse 17, he says, "Not that I'm looking for a gift, but I'm looking for what may be credited to your account." Paul's deep desire here, and this is a strong word in the Greek, there's a strong desire, something he craves, something he yearns for. What is it you want here, Paul? You want more money? No, that's not it at all. My God is going to meet my needs. I don't know, I crave something for you. Like a good father, a good mother wants the best for their children, so also Paul is craving something for the Philippians and what is it? He says, "I want something credited to your account, I want you to store up treasure for heaven, I want you to be rich on judgment day, that's what I want, I want you to be lavishly supplied with rewards in heaven." Now, the word he used here is an accounting word, logos is the word, it's the record book. And so the cover picture on your bulletin there is a ledger with a pen and a number of numbers being kept up there. And that's the sense that there's a ledger book in heaven, that there's a sense of something that's been credited to an account. We get the same kind of accounting language although it doesn't come across in the English so well, in Verse 15, "Moreover, as you Philippians know in the early days of your acquaintance with the gospel when I set out for Macedonia not one church shared with me in the matter of giving and receiving." Those expressions in the Greek giving and receiving are accounting language. It's accounts payable and accounts receivable, that's what it is. So he's using accounting language here with them, the matter of giving and receiving. And so it's a matter of careful accounting. Now the language of Verse 17 is a little different than it appears in the NIV. Verse 17 says, "Not that I seek... " this is New American Standard, "Not that I seek the gift itself, but I seek for the profit which increases to your account." The RSV actually has it closest to the original language in verse 17. "Not that I seek the gift, but I seek the fruit which increases to your credit." The word is literally fruit. But everybody knows he's talking about profits like a business, he's talking about profits that increase to your account. What he seeks then is the result of taking a pear seed and putting it in the ground. He wants a tree that's going to bear lots and lots and lots of beautiful pears. God’s Eternal Ledger Book What is Paul talking about here? Well, God has in heaven, a ledger book. He has a ledger book and He keeps careful records in Heaven of everything that happens in His universe. He's actually very meticulous about His record keeping. It says in Matthew 12:36, "I tell you that men will have to give account on the Day of Judgment for every careless word they have spoken." Now, you may say, "I don't remember what I said earlier this morning." That's all right, God remembers. He's keeping a record of everything you say, and He will remind you on judgment day, so that you can give an account. Let me refresh your memory, what you said on Sunday morning, April 4th, you said this, and then she said that, and then you said this in return, Okay? Tell me about it, let's talk about it. I tell you, that men will have to give an account on the Day of Judgment for every careless word they have spoken. Now, this is a logical argument if you have to give an account for all your careless words, would you not also have to give an account for how you spend your money? For every dime that you spend? Yes, you will. It says in Hebrews 4:13, "Nothing in all creation is hidden from God's sight, everything's uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of Him to whom we must give an account." Romans 14:12, says "Each of us will give an account of himself to God." Daniel had a vision of Judgment Day. That's what it says in Daniel 7:9 and 10, "As I looked, thrones were set in place, and the Ancient of Days took His seat, His clothing was white as snow. The hair of His head was white like wool, His throne was flaming with fire, and its wheels were all ablaze. A river of fire was flowing, coming out from before him, thousands upon thousands attended Him, ten thousand times ten thousand stood before Him, the court was seated and the books were opened." The books were opened. That is Judgment Day. The court is seated, the books are opened. John in Revelation had the same vision. Revelation 20:12, he says, "And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne and books were opened. Another book was opened which is the Book of Life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books." And so, you have in the one case, books that are opened, and there's a record of everything that we said and did in there, and then there's another book. Praise God for the second book, the book of life. Now, we're not going to get saved by anything written in the first books, are we? Nobody is justified by works, we're not saved by giving money to anything, never will be. We are saved by the shed blood of Jesus Christ. And this week on Friday, we can commemorate it as we should, every single day of our lives that Jesus shed His blood on the cross as an atoning sacrifice for our sins, and it's on that basis alone, that we'll stand before God on Judgment Day and if our names are written in the Lamb's Book of Life, we will not be cast into the lake of fire, but we will be with Him forever. I have to be so clear about this because I am enjoining you to store up treasure in Heaven, and you could misunderstand and think that you're going to be earning your salvation by how much money you give to this or that, nothing could be further from the truth. But there are those first books in Revelation 20:12, aren't there? And in those first books is recorded everything we've ever said or done, all stewardship matters recorded in those books. We are merely stewards in God's universe. Everything that we have is His. Now, the essence of stewardship is that we manage something belonging to somebody else. The faithful steward seeks to use his position and skill to benefit his master's affairs. Jesus told a parable in Matthew 25, concerning this. Beginning at verse 14, "Again, it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted his property to them. To one he gave five talents of money, to another two talents, and to another one talent, each according to his ability. Then he went on his journey. The man who had received the five talents went at once and put his money to work and gained five more. So also, the one with the two talents gained two more. But the man who had received the one talent went off, dug a hole in the ground and hid his master's money. After a long time the master of those servants returned and settled accounts with them. The man who had received the five talents brought the other five. 'Master,' he said, 'you entrusted me with five talents. See, I have gained five more.' His master replied, 'Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master's happiness!' The man with the two talents also came. 'Master,' he said, 'you entrusted me with two talents; see, I have gained two more.' His master replied, 'Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master's happiness!' Then the man who had received the one talent came. 'Master,' he said, 'I knew that you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed. So I was afraid and went out and hid your talent in the ground. See, here is what belongs to you.' His master replied, 'You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed? Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest. Take the talent from him and give it to the one who has the ten talents. For everyone who has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'" - Matthew 25:14-30. That's a parable of stewardship, isn't it? It's a parable of accounting and our money is included. More than just money is included, but our money is included. The principles are clear. First of all, the property belongs to the master and not to the steward. Secondly, the master expects the stewards to be wise with their money, with his money, and gain more interest. Growth, he expects them to be out and trading with it. Third, the do-nothing steward receives the harshest possible penalty for his failure to increase his master's wealth. And fourth, faithful stewards are rewarded in proportion to their faithfulness. Brothers and sisters, we are stewards. We are not owners, we're stewards. Stewards of God's earth. And God will ask, "What did you do with it?" Stewards of people and relationships and He'll ask, "What fruit came from them?" Stewards of God's time for this is the day the Lord has made. Stewards of days and years and months minutes hours. How did we improve the time? Stewards of God's possessions, of God's money. How do we use it for His Kingdom? Stewards of God's spiritual gifts, how do we use them to build up Christ's body? Stewards of the Gospel message itself. Did we use it to bring people into the kingdom? Storing Up Treasure in Heaven Now comes the call from the Lord that we might store up treasure in Heaven. Are you storing up treasure in Heaven? This is a command that God has given us. Jesus says in Matthew 6:19:21, "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal, but store up for yourselves treasures in heaven where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal, for where your treasure is there, your heart will be also." Do you realize that even the slightest act of faith, even the smallest act of giving the cup of cold water to a messenger of the Lord because he is the Lord's disciple, Jesus said, "I tell you the truth, he will certainly not lose his reward." Matthew 10:42. As a matter of fact, God feels so strongly about this matter of rewards that He inspired the writer to Hebrews to use the word unjust concerning the failure to give the reward. Says in Hebrews 6:10, "God is not unjust, He will not forget your work and the love you have shown Him as you have helped His people and continue to help them." Now don't misunderstand me, don't you have a sense that any reward we get is lavished beyond anything we could possibly deserve? Just to be in heaven would be enough, and yet God's going to actually reward us for things we did here on Earth. More than that, He's going to clean them up a bit. Have any of us ever done a pure work of graciousness and love for anybody ever? And so even our best works need to be purified and cleansed by God's grace. He's going to do it, He's going to clean up our works and He's going to reward them eternally. And so He has commanded us store up treasure in Heaven. This cannot be good works for justification, we've already said that. Nobody's going to be justified by good works, but after you've come to faith in Christ, He expects you to store up treasure every single day of your life, and how you use your money is a huge part of that. What Is the Reward? Now, what is the reward, what do you get? What's the reward going to be, a better place on Heaven Street? I don't know, I don't really know. I've meditated on this this week, and it's been a delightful meditation. I think there are at least three aspects of what the reward is. First of all, praise from God specifically tied to the good deed itself. Let me say that again, praise from God specifically tied to the good deed. "Well done, good and faithful servant. You've been faithful in the few things. I'll put you in charge of many things." Just praise from God. Could anything be more valuable than that? If you love the Lord, what could be more valuable than to have the Lord say, "I am pleased with you"? And I think it's meticulous praise. In other words, tied to each good deed. Jesus said, "When you pray, go into your room. Close the door and pray to your Father who is unseen," and your Father who sees what is done in secret will…" Do what? "Reward you." And so He will say, "That afternoon that you spent time praying for missionaries, I saw it. I'll never forget it. Well done." "And the time that you gave sacrificially to missions, I saw it. Well done." I'm thinking I'd like to have lots of that, wouldn't you? I'd like to have lots and lots of that kind of praise. I think that's a good way to understand the rewards because it's not idolatrous. Its focused very much on the person of God. It's God saying to us, "I am pleased with you," and us being pleased with God's pleasure in us. That's a good reward isn't it? Secondly, I think it's increased responsibilities in the new heavens and new Earth. The parable of the Minas. M-I-N-I, it's a larger sum of money, in Luke 19, he says, "Because you have the 10 minas, I'm going to put you in charge of 10 cities." Now, I don't have any idea what life will be like in the new heavens and the new earth. I don't. We can speculate but I think there will be varying levels of responsibility. Jesus says in another place. "If you're not careful with money, who will entrust you with real riches or with treasure of your own?" It's a very interesting statement. And so there's I think a sense of increased responsibility in the new heavens and the new earth. And third the shared happiness of the master. Just that you'd be pleased because God is pleased. Enter into the joy of your Master. Those are three good rewards don't you think? The praise from God, increased responsibility in new heavens and new earth, and shared happiness of the master. IV. What Paul Promises: God’s Constant Supply Now, along the way Paul helps us a bit. He promises us God's constant supply. Look at verse 19. "And my God will supply," this is the New American Standard Version here, "My God will supply all your needs, according to His riches and glory in Christ Jesus." A great enemy of faith-filled giving is anxiety about what will happen to you. Right? "If I give all this money away, what's going to happen to us?" Concern and anxiety. Well, it's addressed very openly here. He says, "My God will supply all your needs," the word in the Greek means fill up amply, meet it completely. I'll give you absolutely everything that you need. Hudson Taylor said, "God's work done in God's way will never lack God's supply," and so he says "I promise you I will supply all your needs." The Emperor Napoleon says... Said, "An army marches on its stomach." An Army marches on its stomach, what's that mean? You got to provide the basic needs of your soldiers. Or they can't do the job. Well, if Napoleon knew it, how much more does our Heavenly Commander know it? And He knows that you need certain things in order to do the job He's giving you to do. But notice it says "My God will meet all your needs." Oh, well, that's a little tricky, isn't it? I had bigger ambitions than that material actually. Yes, more than food and clothing. Paul says in 1 Timothy 6, "If we have food and clothing, we'll be content with that." Jesus taught the same thing in Matthew 6. So do not worry saying, "What shall we eat, or what should we drink, or what shall we wear? For the pagans run after all these things and your Heavenly Father knows that you need them." These are basic needs. And He promises you here in Verse 19 that He will supply all of your needs, if you live a life of faithful generosity in service to Him. And look what it says too, He'll meet all your needs according to His glorious riches. Now, if Bill Gates gives you 10 bucks, because you asked him for some money, he's giving you out of his riches. But what if he were to give you according to his riches? Shall I say, in proportion to what he has, I think you'd get more than 10 bucks. And so also, God has promised to lavishly supply you in proportion to how much He has available. And how much is that? How much does God have available? Well, you've heard it before, Psalm 50:10, Our God owns the cattle on a thousand hills. Recently, I heard a wonderful story about that. Shortly after Dallas Theological Seminary was founded in 1924, it almost folded into bankruptcy. All the creditors were ready to foreclose at noon on a given day. That morning, the founders of the seminary met in the president's office to pray that God would somehow provide. In that meeting was a man named Dr. Harry Ironside. When it was his turn to pray, he said in his refreshingly candid way, "Lord, we know that the cattle on a thousand hills are thine, please sell some of them and give the money to us." That's a great prayer, isn't it? Just about then a tall Texan wearing cowboy boots and an open collar shirt, strolled into the school's business office. "Howdy?" He said to the secretary, "I've just sold two carloads of cattle over in Fort Worth, I've been trying to make another business deal go through but it just won't work. I feel God wants me to give this money to the seminary. I don't know if you need it or not, but here's the check." The Secretary took the check, and knowing the nature of the business of that day, went to the door of the president's office and timidly knocked. Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer, the Founder and President of Dallas Theological Seminary, answered the door and took the check from the Secretary. When he looked at the amount, it was for the exact amount of the debt, lined up perfectly. Then he recognized the name of the cattleman on the check, and turning to Dr. Ironside he said, "Harry, God sold the cattle." I think it's a matter of principle that God will be faithful to meet your needs if you will step out in faith and seek first His Kingdom and His Righteousness, He will meet your needs. Now, what application can we take from this? Well, I guess it should be obvious, but I want to spell it out, okay. You need to give, you need to give generously. God doesn't need you to give, you need to give. And this church doesn't need you to give, ultimately, God will meet this church's needs. I'm not standing here so much as a pastor, you know that pastors don't like to preach on stewardship usually. I don't really feel that way about it, but I am protected from such problems by being an expositor, a verse by verse expositor. I can't help but preach about money today, because it's the next text, but I'm delighted to preach about it. Randy Alcorn said to a group of pastors, he said, it'd be like a pastor saying, "Well, today I need to preach on adultery. Now, those of you committing adultery, this will be my last sermon on it for a while, so just relax and I won't be touching on this again for another year or two," like we're apologizing for something that Jesus taught a great deal about. He taught a lot about money. And we need to be generous, we need not just our hearts, but our wallets to be sanctified. We need to give generously. We live in a world with deep spiritual and material poverty. 1.6 billion people or more have never heard of Jesus Christ, they've never heard the life-saving message in this, "God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life." They've never heard that message. 1.6 billion. More than one billion people live in absolute poverty. This includes 700 million people living in slums, 500 million people on the verge of starvation, 93 million beggars, 200 million children exploited for labor. In the year 2000, American evangelicals collectively made $2.66 trillion in income. Over the next 50 years, somewhere between $41 trillion and $136 trillion will pass from older Americans to younger generations, suggesting that roughly $1 trillion to $3 trillion in wealth will change hands every year. The average donation by adults who attend US Protestant churches is about $17 a week. Among church members of 11 primary Protestant denominations, the per capita giving by percentage of income was lower in the year 2000 than either in the year 1921 or 1933. In 1921 per-member giving as a percentage of income was 2.9%, 2.9%. In 1933 at the depth of the Great Depression, it was 3.3%. But in the year 2000, after a half century of unprecedented prosperity in America, giving had fallen to 2.6%. Overall only 3% to 5% of Americans who donate money to a church tithe, although a larger number than that claim to tithe. Tithe is one 10th of income given. As I look at those statistics and I think about the need, I think about the resources in this local church and in churches like this across the country, I think that we're not being as faithful as we should be with our money. I think that we should be giving more sacrificially. I think that we should be sanctified in our hearts and in our wallets, I think we should store up treasure in Heaven. Randy Alcorn gave a great illustration about this. He said, imagine that you were a business man who regularly used Federal Express. And suppose you found out that the Federal Express man who came and picked up all your packages, was actually hoarding them in his home and using them for his own private use. I mean, the coat that you had given to your father for his birthday, he never got it, you wonder where it went? FedEx guy has it. The important business papers, the checks and other things that you had hoped to transfer, FedEx guy has it. And not just your stuff, but all the music and videos and equipment and all that, FedEx guy has it. And you're shocked when you find out and you go and confront this guy, and he said, "Well look, if you didn't mean for me to have it, why did you give it to me?" I remember what Randy Alcorn said, "You're the FedEx guy for crying out loud. You weren't meant to have it, you were meant to pass it on." But could it be that we spiritually are the FedEx guy? And that we're saying in effect to God, if you didn't mean me to have it, why did you give it to me? I would like this church to be like a clear pipe, a conduit of water that just flows from Heaven through us to some need. V. Application: How Are You Investing “Your” Money? So what is the application? Give, give generously. Give to this church, give to the global priority mission fund. It's at its lowest level now since it started, okay. We use that money for sending short-term missionaries and from meeting other needs. Give to the Lottie Moon, start saving up now for Lottie Moon. Set aside a container or something and just give all year long to Lottie Moon, so that you can give far more generously than if you would if you were just looking at it in December. In your bulletin, I've given you a financial covenant. Randy Alcorn wrote it, I changed it a bit, changed it a bit. I don't want to get into the issues of whether tithing per se is a new covenant issue. But Randy Alcorn does make a good point. He said, in every case of spiritual obedience, the New Covenant calls its covenant members to a higher level of commitment than the Old Covenant did. And the tithe was the basic standard of giving in the old covenant. Randy Alcorn calls the tithe the training wheels of Christian giving, the training wheels. And he said, people say, I can't tithe. He said, "Well, let me ask you a simple question: If you were to tithe over the next year, would you die?" That's a good question, don't you think? I'm not trying to be shocking, whatever, but would you die if you actually tithe over the next year? So what I'm asking you to do is take this covenant home and read it over in your home. Husbands and wives read it together, read it over prayerfully. And if you feel in good conscience that you can sign this before God, I would urge you to do so, and get a witness. If you're a single person, get a Christian brother or sister to watch you sign it. And then put it up in your papers, important papers at your home. Two weeks from now, I'm going to give you a similar covenant which has no place for you to sign, but boxes for you to check. It'll be in the bulletin, and I'm going to urge you to check the boxes that you feel you can check, and then put it in the offering plate anonymously. I want you to understand we are not trying to have a pledge drive here. I want you to make a pledge between yourself and God. We will take those things out of the offering plate and put them in a box and keep them for a year, and we'll pray over them and pray that you'll be faithful to the covenant and the commitment you've made to God. But we're urging you, and why? Well, we're not looking for a gift, but we're looking for what may be credited to your account.