Podcasts about might god

White Oak Baptist Church of Stratford, CT is a loving, Christ-centered Church engaging our community in a powerful way. To learn more about our church and how you can connect, please visit http://www.whiteoakbc.org

White Oak Baptist Church of Stratford, CT is a loving, Christ-centered Church engaging our community in a powerful way. To learn more about our church and how you can connect, please visit http://www.whiteoakbc.org

In this message, Pastor Emilio returns to Isaiah 9:6–7 for a deeper look at who Jesus was promised to be. This week's focus: our Mighty God.

David wonders in Ps51 why God might be so good to him. He asks for mercy first, then more than mercy. He asks for a fully restored, even thriving relationship.  Why?So he can be educationalSo he can be evangelicalSo he can be worshipfulSo he can intercede for the house of God.Don't let this great sin go to waste.https://youtu.be/IRv3OSeGA-M

Welcome to the Be Encouraged Podcast! I am your host, Jackie Brindle. You are listening to season 3 - Episode 2 of the Receive Series. Our topic today will be all about RECEIVING COURAGE! Thank you all for pressing play today — please encourage me as well with a raving review and share this episode on Instagram and tag @be_encourage_podcast and our guest speaker today with the information in our show notes! Speaking of…. To help me encourage you all is our guest speaker is Laura L. Smith. Laura Smith is a well-known speaker, podcaster, and best-selling author who hasWritten several books including, “How Sweet the Sound: The Power and Promise of 30Beloved Hymns has sold more than 130,000 copies. — She is incredible!! Laura is so passionate about helping other women, especially passionate about helping them tear down lies, so we can live in Christ's truth! In her newest book release, called Brave Women, Mighty God - 30 Things You Can Do. Laura embodies the essence of what it means to encourage women and to give them hope that they can do mighty things with the good that God has placed within them. Perhaps you feel called to do something, but every time you step out in faith, you end up feeling unheard, not seen, or stuck in a rut. You may need the fresh power of God to inspire you to be brave in your current situation, much like the woman of the Bible that Laura wrote about. God is still writing your story, and I have no doubt He is calling you to rise up and to do brave things, too. Receive the courage that Christ extends to you freely today —- and there's no telling what will come from your brave obedience to follow His lead. Let's grab your cup of coffee, get on your walk or run, and wherever you are — be encouraged! Let's receive something good today! Check out our guest speaker- Laura L. Smith, by clicking the link below. WEBSITE: laurasmithauthor.com Click here for a free download of Brave Women, Might God by Laura Smith https://linktr.ee/jackiebrindleSOCIAL MEDIA: Facebook: @LauraLSmithAuthor Instagram: @laurasmithauthorScripture to study from the episode: Ephesians 1:19 (ESV)  ​​”and what is the immeasurable greatness of his power toward us who believe, according to the working of his great might.”

When God asks us to give something up, it's rarely easy. Whether it's a habit, a relationship, a dream, or even something we hold dear, letting go can feel like a test of faith and trust. In this video, I'll walk you through: Why God asks us to let go and how it's often for our growth. Practical steps to surrender with grace and confidence. Personal insights from my own journey of giving things up and how God showed up in powerful ways. Remember, God's plans are always better than what we could imagine for ourselves—even when it's hard to see in the moment. Stick with me as we navigate this together. Key Scripture: “For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.” — Jeremiah 29:11

I was delighted to talk to the historian Helen Castor (who writes The H Files by Helen Castor) about her new book The Eagle and the Hart. I found that book compulsive, and this is one of my favourite interviews so far. We covered so much: Dickens, Melville, Diana Wynne Jones, Hilary Mantel, whether Edward III is to blame for the Wars of the Roses, why Bolingbroke did the right thing, the Paston Letters, whether we should dig up old tombs for research, leaving academia, Elizabeth I, and, of course, lots of Shakespeare. There is a full transcript below.Henry: Is there anything that we fundamentally know about this episode in history that Shakespeare didn't know?Helen: That's an extremely good question, and I'm tempted now to say no.Helen told me what is hardest to imagine about life in the fourteenth century.I think it's relatively easy to imagine a small community or even a city, because we can imagine lots of human beings together, but how relationships between human beings happen at a distance, not just in terms of writing a letter to someone you know, but how a very effective power structure happens across hundreds of miles in the absence of those things is the thing that has always absolutely fascinated me about the late Middle Ages. I think that's because it's hard, for me at least, to imagine.Good news to any publishers reading this. Helen is ready and willing to produce a complete edition of the Paston Letters. They were a bestseller when they were published a hundred years ago, but we are crying out for a complete edition in modern English.Henry: If someone wants to read the Paston Letters, but they don't want to read Middle English, weird spelling, et cetera, is there a good edition that they can use?Helen: Yes, there is an Oxford World's Classic. They're all selected. There isn't a complete edition in modern spelling. If any publishers are listening, I would love to do one. Henry: Yes, let's have it.Helen: Let's have it. I would really, really love to do that.Full TranscriptHenry: Today I am talking to the historian, Helen Castor. Helen is a former fellow of Sydney Sussex College in Cambridge. She has written several books of history. She is now a public historian, and of course, she has a Substack. The H Files by Helen CastorWe are going to talk mostly about her book, The Eagle and the Hart, which is all about Richard II and Henry IV. I found this book compulsive, so I hope you will read it too. Helen, welcome.Helen: Thank you very much for having me, Henry.Henry: You recently read Bleak House.Helen: I did.Henry: What did you think?Helen: I absolutely loved it. It was a long time since I'd read any Dickens. I read quite a lot when I was young. I read quite a lot of everything when I was young and have fallen off that reader's perch, much to my shame. The first page, that description of the London fog, the London courts, and I thought, "Why have I not been doing it for all these years?"Then I remembered, as so often with Dickens, the bits I love and the bits I'm less fond of, the sentimentality, the grotesquerie I'm less fond of, but the humour and the writing. There was one bit that I have not been able to read then or any of the times I've tried since without physically sobbing. It's a long time since a book has done that to me. I don't want to spoil it for anyone who hasn't read it, but--Henry: I'm sure I know what you mean. That's quite a sentimental passage.Helen: It is, but not sentimental in the way that I find myself objecting to. I think I really respond viscerally to this sentimentalising of some of his young women characters. I find that really off-putting, but I think now I'm a parent, and particularly I'm a parent of a boy [laughter]. I think it's that sense of a child being completely alone with no one to look after them, and then finding some people, but too late for a happy ending.Henry: Too late.Helen: Yes.Henry: You've been reading other classic novels, I think, Moby Dick?Helen: I'm in the middle of Moby Dick as we speak. I'm going very slowly, partly because I'm trying to savour every sentence. I love the sentence so much as a form. Melville is just astonishing, and also very, very funny in a way I hadn't expected to keep laughing out loud, sometimes because there is such humour in a sentence.Sometimes I'm just laughing because the sentence itself seems to have such audacity and that willingness to go places with sentences that sometimes I feel we've lost in the sort of sense of rules-based sentences instead of just sticking a semicolon and keep going. Why not, because it's so gorgeous and full of the joy of language at that point? Anyway, I'm ranting now, but--Henry: No, I think a lot of rules were instituted in the early 20th century that said you can and cannot do all these things, and writers before that point had not often followed those rules. I think what it has led to is that writers now, they can't really control a long sentence, in the sense that Melville and Dickens will do a long sentence, and it is a syntactically coherent thing, even though it's 60, 70 longer words. It's not just lots of stuff, and then, and then. The whole thing has got a beautiful structure that makes sense as a unit. That's just not obvious in a lot of writing now.Helen: I think that's exactly right. Partly, I've been reading some of the Melville out loud, and having just got onto the classification of whales, you can see I'm going very slowly. Those sentences, which are so long, but it's exactly that. If you read them out loud, and you follow the sense, and the punctuation, however irregular it might be in modern terms, gives you the breathing, you just flow on it, and the excitement of that, even or perhaps especially when one is talking about the classification of whales. Just joyful.Henry: Will we be seeing more very long sentences in your next book?Helen: I think I have to get a bit better at it. The habit that I was conscious of anyway, but became acutely so when I had to read my own audiobook for the first time is that I think I write in a very visual way. That is how I read because mostly it's silent.I discovered or rediscovered that often what I do when I want to write a very long sentence is I start the sentence and then I put a diversion or extra information within em dashes in the middle of the sentence. That works on the page because you can see spatially. I love that way of reading, I love seeing words in space.A lot of different kinds of text, both prose and poetry, I read in space like that. If you're reading to be heard, then the difficulty of breaking into a sentence with, whether it's brackets or em dashes or whatever, and then rejoining the sentence further down has its own challenges. Perhaps I ought to try and do less of that and experiment more with a Melvillian Dickensian onward flow. I don't know what my editor will think.Henry: What has brought you back to reading novels like this?Helen: I was wondering that this morning, actually, because I'm very aware having joined Substack, and of course, your Substack is one of the ones that is leading me further in this direction, very inspiringly, is discovering that lots of other people are reading and reading long novels now too. It reminded me of that thing that anyone with children will know that you have a baby and you call it something that you think only you have thought of, and then four years later, you call and you discover half the class is called that name. You wonder what was in the water that led everybody in that direction.I've just seen someone tweet this morning about how inspired they are by the builder next door who, on the scaffolding, is blasting the audiobook Middlemarch to the whole neighborhood.Henry: Oh my god. Amazing.Helen: It's really happening. Insofar as I can work out what led me as opposed to following a group, which clearly I am in some sense, I think the world at the moment is so disquieting, and depressing, and unnerving, that I think for me, there was a wish to escape into another world and another world that would be very immersive, not removed from this world completely. One that is very recognizably human.I think when I was younger, when I was in my teens and 20s, I loved reading science fiction and fantasy before it was such a genre as it is now. I'm a huge fan of Diana Wynne Jones and people like that.Henry: Oh, my god, same. Which one is your favorite?Helen: Oh, that is an impossible question to answer, partly because I want to go back and read a lot of them. Actually, I've got something next to me, just to get some obscurity points. I want to go back to Everard's Ride because there is a story in here that is based on the King's square. I don't know if I'm saying that right, but early 15th century, the story of the imprisoned King of Scotland when he was in prison in England. That one's in my head.The Dalemark Quartet I love because of the sort of medieval, but then I love the ones that are pure, more science fantasy. Which is your favorite? Which should I go back to first?Henry: I haven't read them all because I only started a couple of years ago. I just read Deep Secret, and I thought that was really excellent. I was in Bristol when I read it quite unwittingly. That was wonderful.Helen: Surrounded by Diana Wynne Jones' land. I only discovered many years into an obsession that just meant that I would read every new one while there were still new ones coming out. I sat next to Colin Burrow at a dinner in--Henry: Oh my god.Helen: I did sort of know that he was her son, but monstered him for the whole time, the whole course of sitting together, because I couldn't quite imagine her in a domestic setting, if you like, because she came up with all these extraordinary worlds. I think in days gone by, I went into more obviously imaginary worlds. I think coming back to it now, I wanted something big and something that I really could disappear into. I've been told to read Bleak House for so many decades and felt so ashamed I hadn't. Having done that, I thought, "Well, the whale."Henry: Have you read Diana Wynne Jones' husband's books, John Burrow? Because that's more in your field.Helen: It is, although I'm ashamed to say how badly read I am in medieval literary scholarship. It's weird how these academic silos can operate, shouldn't, probably don't for many, many people. I always feel I'm on horribly thin ground, thin ice when I start talking about medieval literature because I know how much scholarship is out there, and I know how much I haven't read. I must put John Burrow on my list as well.Henry: He's very readable. He's excellent.Helen: I think I can imagine, but I must go into it.Henry: Also, his books are refreshingly short. Your husband is a poet, so there's a lot of literature in your life at the moment.Helen: There is. When we met, which was 10 years ago-- Again, I don't think of myself as knowledgeable about poetry in general, but what was wonderful was discovering how much we had in common in the writing process and how much I could learn from him. To me, one of the things that has always been extremely important in my writing is the sentence, the sound of a sentence, the rhythm of a sentence folded into a paragraph.I find it extremely hard to move on from a paragraph if it's not sitting right yet. The sitting right is as much to do with sound and rhythm as it is to do with content. The content has to be right. It means I'm a nightmare to edit because once I do move on from a paragraph, I think it's finished. Obviously, my editor might beg to differ.I'm very grateful to Thomas Penn, who's also a wonderful historian, who's my editor on this last book, for being so patient with my recalcitrance as an editee. Talking to my husband about words in space on the page, about the rhythm, about the sound, about how he goes about writing has been so valuable and illuminating.I hope that the reading I've been doing, the other thing I should say about going back to big 19th-century novels is that, of course, I had the enormous privilege and learning curve of being part of a Booker jury panel three years ago. That too was an enormous kick in terms of reading and thinking about reading because my co-judges were such phenomenal reading company, and I learned such a lot that year.I feel not only I hope growing as a historian, but I am really, really focusing on writing, reading, being forced out of my bunker where writing is all on the page, starting to think about sound more, think about hearing more, because I think more and more, we are reading that way as a culture, it seems to me, the growth of audiobooks. My mother is adjusting to audiobooks now, and it's so interesting to listen to her as a lifelong, voracious reader, adjusting to what it is to experience a book through sound rather than on the page. I just think it's all fascinating, and I'm trying to learn as I write.Henry: I've been experimenting with audiobooks, because I felt like I had to, and I sort of typically hate audio anything. Jonathan Swift is very good, and so is Diana Wynne Jones.Helen: Interesting. Those two specifically. Is there something that connects the two of them, or are they separately good?Henry: I think they both wrote in a plain, colloquial style. It was very capable of being quite intellectual and had capacity for ideas. Diana Wynne Jones certainly took care about the way it sounded because she read so much to her own children, and that was really when she first read all the children's classics. She had developed for many years an understanding of what would sound good when it was read to a child, I think.Helen: And so that's the voice in her head.Henry: Indeed. As you read her essays, she talks about living with her Welsh grandfather for a year. He was intoning in the chapel, and she sort of comes out of this culture as well.Helen: Then Swift, a much more oral culture.Henry: Swift, of course, is in a very print-heavy culture because he's in London in 1710. We've got coffee houses and all the examiner, and the spectator, and all these people scribbling about each other. I think he was very insistent on what he called proper words in proper places. He became famous for that plain style. It's very carefully done, and you can't go wrong reading that out loud. He's very considerate of the reader that you won't suddenly go, "Oh, I'm in the middle of this huge parenthesis. I don't know how--" As you were saying, Swift-- he would be very deliberate about the placement of everything.Helen: A lot of that has to do with rhythm.Henry: Yes.Helen: Doesn't it? I suppose what I'm wondering, being very ignorant about the 18th century is, in a print-saturated culture, but still one where literacy was less universal than now, are we to assume that that print-saturated culture also incorporated reading out loud —Henry: Yes, exactly so. Exactly so. If you are at home, letters are read out loud. This obviously gives the novelists great opportunities to write letters that have to sort of work both ways. Novels are read out loud. This goes on into the 19th century. Dickens had many illiterate fans who knew his work through it being read to them. Charles Darwin's wife read him novels. When he says, "I love novels," what he means is, "I love it when my wife reads me a novel." [laughs]You're absolutely right. A good part of your audience would come from those listening as well as those reading it.Helen: Maybe we're getting back towards a new version of that with audiobooks expanding in their reach.Henry: I don't know. I saw some interesting stuff. I can't remember who was saying this. Someone was saying, "It's not an oral culture if you're watching short videos. That's a different sort of culture." I think, for us, we can say, "Oh yes, we're like Jonathan Swift," but for the culture at large, I don't know. It is an interesting mixed picture at the moment.Helen: Yes, history never repeats, but we should be wary of writing off any part of culture to do with words.Henry: I think so. If people are reporting builders irritating the neighbourhood with George Eliot, then it's a very mixed picture, right?Helen: It is.Henry: Last literary question. Hilary Mantel has been a big influence on you. What have you taken from her?Helen: That's quite a hard question to answer because I feel I just sit at her feet in awe. If I could point to anything in my writing that could live up to her, I would be very happy. The word that's coming into my head when you phrase the question in that way, I suppose, might be an absolute commitment to precision. Precision in language matters to me so much. Her thought and her writing of whatever kind seems to me to be so precise.Listening to interviews with her is such an outrageous experience because these beautifully, entirely formed sentences come out of her mouth as though that's how thought and language work. They don't for me. [chuckles] I'm talking about her in the present tense because I didn't know her, but I find it hard to imagine that she's not out there somewhere.Henry: She liked ghosts. She might be with us.Helen: She might. I would like to think that. Her writing of whatever genre always seems to me to have that precision, and it's precision of language that mirrors precision of thought, including the ability to imagine herself into somebody else's mind. That's, I suppose, my project as a historian. I'm always trying to experience a lost world through the eyes of a lost person or people, which, of course, when you put it like that, is an impossible task, but she makes it seem possible for her anyway and that's the road I'm attempting to travel one way or another.Henry: What is it about the 14th and 15th centuries that is hardest for us to imagine?Helen: I think this speaks to something else that Hilary Mantel does so extraordinarily well, which is to show us entire human beings who live and breathe and think and feel just as we do in as complex and contradictory and three-dimensional a way as we do, and yet who live in a world that is stripped of so many of the things that we take so much for granted that we find it, I think, hard to imagine how one could function without them.What I've always loved about the late Middle Ages, as a political historian, which is what I think of myself as, is that it has in England such a complex and sophisticated system of government, but one that operates so overwhelmingly through human beings, rather than impersonal, institutionalized, technological structures.You have a king who is the fount of all authority, exercising an extraordinary degree of control over a whole country, but without telephones, without motorized transport, without a professional police service, without a standing army. If we strip away from our understanding of government, all those things, then how on earth does society happen, does rule happen, does government happen?I think it's relatively easy to imagine a small community or even a city, because we can imagine lots of human beings together, but how relationships between human beings happen at a distance, not just in terms of writing a letter to someone you know, but how a very effective power structure happens across hundreds of miles in the absence of those things is the thing that has always absolutely fascinated me about the late Middle Ages. I think that's because it's hard, for me at least, to imagine.Henry: Good. You went to the RSC to watch The Henriad in 2013.Helen: I did.Henry: Is Shakespeare a big influence on this book? How did that affect you?Helen: I suppose this is a long story because Richard II and The Henriad have been-- there is Richard II. Richard II is part of The Henriad, isn't it?Henry: Yes.Helen: Richard II. Henry, see, this is-Henry: The two Henry IVs.Helen: -I'm not Shakespearean. I am. [laughs]Henry: No, it's Richard II, the two Henry IVs, and Henry V. Because, of course, Henry Bolingbroke is in Richard II, and it--Helen: Yes, although I never think of him as really the same person as Henry IV in the Henry IV plays, because he changes so dramatically between the two.Henry: Very often, they have a young actor and an old actor, and of course, in real life, that's insane, right?Helen: It's absolutely insane. I always separate Henry IV, parts I and II, and Henry V off from Richard II because it feels to me as though they operate in rather different worlds, which they do in lots of ways. My story with the Henry ad, now that we've established that I actually know what we're talking about, goes back to when I was in my teens and Kenneth Branagh was playing Henry V in Stratford. I grew up very near Stratford.At 15, 16, watching the young Branagh play Henry V was mind-blowing. I went a whole number of times because, in those days, I don't know how it is now, but you could go and get standing tickets for a fiver on the day. More often than not, if there were spare seats, you would get moved into some extraordinary stall seats at-- I was about to say halftime, I'm a football fan, at the interval.Henry V was the play I knew best for a long time, but at the same time, I'd studied Richard II at school. The Henry IV plays are the ones I know least well. I'm interested now to reflect on the fact that they are the ones that depart most from history. I wonder whether that's why I find them hardest to love, because I'm always coming to the plays from the history. Richard II and Henry V actually have a lot to show us about those kings. They bear very close relationships with a lot of the contemporary chronicles, whereas the Henry IV ones is Shakespeare doing his own thing much more.Particularly, as you've just said, making Henry IV way too old, and/or depending which angle we're looking at it from, making Hotspur way too young, the real Hotspur was three years older than Henry IV. If you want to make Hotspur and how-- your young Turks, you have to make Henry IV old and grey and weary with Northumberland.Back in 2013, the really intense experience I had was being asked to go for a day to join the RSC company on a school trip to Westminster Hall and Westminster Abbey at the beginning of their rehearsal process, so when David Tennant was playing Richard II and Greg Doran was directing. That was absolutely fascinating. I'd been thinking about Richard and Henry for a very long time. Obviously, I was a long way away from writing the book I've just written.Talking to actors is an extraordinary thing for a historian because, of course, to them, these are living characters. They want to know what's in their character's mind. They want to know, quite rightly, the chronological progression of their character's thought. That is something that's become more and more and more and more important to me.The longer I go on writing history, the more intensely attached I am to the need for chronology because if it hasn't happened to your protagonist yet, what are you doing with it? Your protagonist doesn't yet know. We don't know. It's very dramatically clear to us at the moment that we don't know what's happening tomorrow. Any number of outrageous and unpredictable things might happen tomorrow.The same certainly was true in Richard II's reign, goes on being true in Henry IV's reign. That experience, in the wake of which I then went to see Henry IV, parts 1 and 2 in Stratford, was really thought-provoking. The extent to which, even though I'd been working on this period for a long time, and had taught this period, I still was struggling to answer some of those questions.Then I'd just had the similarly amazing experience of having a meeting with the Richard II cast and director at the Bridge Theatre before the Nicholas Heitner production with Jonathan Bailey as Richard went on stage. That was actually towards the end of their rehearsal process. I was so struck that the actor playing Bolingbroke in this production and the actor playing Bolingbroke in the production back in 2013 both asked the same excellent first question, which is so hard for a historian to answer, which is at what point does Bolingbroke decide that he's coming back to claim the crown, not just the Duchy of Lancaster?That is a key question for Bolingbroke in Richard II. Does he already know when he decides he's going to break his exile and come back? Is he challenging for the crown straight away, or is he just coming back for his rightful inheritance with the Duchy of Lancaster? That is the million-dollar question when you're writing about Bolingbroke in 1399.It's not possible to answer with a smoking gun. We don't have a letter or a diary entry from Henry Bolingbroke as he's about to step on board ship in Boulogne saying, "I'm saying I'm coming back for the Duchy of Lancaster." The unfolding logic of his situation is that if he's going to come back at all, he's going to have to claim the crown. When he admits that to himself, and when he admits that to anybody else, are questions we can argue about.It was so interesting to me that that's the question that Shakespeare's Richard II throws up for his Bolingbroke just as much as it does for the historical one.Henry: Is there anything that we fundamentally know about this episode in history that Shakespeare didn't know?Helen: That's an extremely good question, and I'm tempted now to say no.Henry: When I left your book, the one thing I thought was that in Shakespeare, the nobles turn against Richard because of his excesses. Obviously, he really dramatizes that around the death of Gaunt. From your book, you may disagree with this, I came away thinking, well, the nobles wanted more power all the time. They may not have wanted the king's power, but there was this constant thing of the nobles feeling like they were owed more authority.Helen: I think the nobles always want more power because they are ambitious, competitive men within a political structure that rewards ambition and competition. The crucial thing for them is that they can only safely pursue ambition and competition if they know that the structure they're competing within will hold.The thing that keeps that structure rooted and solidly in place is the crown and the things that the crown is there to uphold, namely, particularly, the rule of law because if the rule of law starts to crumble, then the risk is that the whole structure collapses into anarchy. Within anarchy, then a powerful man cannot safely compete for more power because an even more powerful man might be about to roll into his estates and take them over. There have to be rules. There has to be fair competition. The referee is there on a football pitch for a reason.The king, in some senses, whether you want to see him as the keystone in an arch that supports a building or whether he's a referee on a football pitch, there are reasons why powerful men need rules because rules uphold their power. What goes wrong with Richard is that instead of seeing that he and the nobles have a common interest in keeping this structure standing, and that actually he can become more powerful if he works with and through the nobles, he sees them as a threat to him.He's attempting to establish a power structure that will not be beholden to them. In so doing, he becomes a threat to them. This structure that is supposed to stand as one mutually supportive thing is beginning to tear itself apart. That is why Richard's treatment of Bolingbroke becomes such a crucial catalyst, because what Richard does to Bolingbroke is unlawful in a very real and very technical sense. Bolingbroke has not been convicted of any crime. He's not been properly tried. There's been this trial by combat, the duel with Mowbray, but it hasn't stopped arbitrarily, and an arbitrary punishment visited upon both of them. They're both being exiled without having been found guilty, without the judgment of God speaking through this duel.Richard then promises that Bolingbroke can have his inheritance, even though he's in exile. As soon as Gaunt dies, Richard says, "No, I'm having it." Now, all of that is unlawful treatment of Bolingbroke, but because Bolingbroke is the most powerful nobleman in the country, it is also a warning and a threat to every other member of the political classes that if the king takes against you, then his arbitrary will can override the law.That diagnosis is there in Shakespeare. It's the Duke of York, who in reality was just a completely hopeless, wet figure, but he says, and I've got it written down, keep it beside me.Henry: Very nice.Helen: Kind of ridiculous, but here it is. York says to Richard, "Take Herford's rights away and take from time his charters and his customary rights. Let not tomorrow then ensue today. Be not thyself, for how art thou a king, but by fair sequence and succession?" In other words, if you interfere with, and I know you've written about time in these plays, it's absolutely crucial.Part of the process of time in these plays is that the rules play out over time. Any one individual king must not break those rules so that the expected process of succession over time can take place. York's warning comes true, that Richard is unseating himself by seeking to unseat Bolingbroke from his inheritance.Henry: We give Shakespeare good marks as a historian.Helen: In this play, yes, absolutely. The things he tinkers with in Richard II are minor plot points. He compresses time in order to get it all on stage in a plausible sequence of events. He compresses two queens into one, given that Richard was married to, by the time he fell, a nine-year-old who he'd married when he was six. It's harder to have a six-year-old making speeches on stage, so he puts the two queens into one.Henry: You don't want to pay another actor.Helen: Exactly.Henry: It's expensive.Helen: You don't want children and animals on stage. Although there is a wonderful account of a production of Richard II on stage in the West End in 1901, with the Australian actor Oscar Asche in it, playing Bolingbroke. The duel scene, he had full armour and a horse, opening night. It was a different horse from the one he rehearsed with. He gives an account in his autobiography of this horse rearing and him somersaulting heroically off the horse.Henry: Oh my god.Helen: The curtain having to come down and then it going back up again to tumultuous applause. You think, "Oscar, I'm wondering whether you're over-egging this pudding." Anyway, I give Shakespeare very good marks in Richard II, not really in the Henry IV plays, but gets back on track.Henry: The Henry IV plays are so good, we're forgiven. Was Richard II a prototype Henry VIII?Helen: Yes. Although, of course, history doesn't work forwards like that. I always worry about being a historian, talking about prototypes, if you see what I mean, but--Henry: No, this is just some podcast, so we don't have to be too strict. He's over-mighty, his sense of his relationship to God. There are issues in parliament about, "How much can the Pope tell us what to do?" There are certain things that seem to be inherent in the way the British state conceives of itself at this point that become problematic in another way.Helen: Is this pushing it too far to say Richard is a second son who ends up being the lone precious heir to the throne who must be wrapped in cotton wool to ensure that his unique God-given authority is protected? Also describes Henry VIII.Henry: They both like fancy clothes.Helen: Both like fancy clothes. Charles I is also a second son who has to step up.Henry: With wonderful cuffs and collars. He's another big dresser.Helen: And great patrons of art. I think we're developing new historical--Henry: No, I think there's a whole thing here.Helen: I think there is. What Henry does, of course, in rather different, because a lot has changed thanks to the Wars of the Roses, the power of the nobility to stand up independently of the crown is significantly lessened by the political effects of the Wars of the Roses, not at least that a lot of them have had their heads cut off, or died in battle, and the Tudors are busy making sure that they remain in the newly subjected place that they find themselves in.Henry then finds to go back to Hilary Mantel, a very, very able political servant who works out how to use parliament for him in rejecting those extra English powers that might restrain him. I do always wonder what Richard thought he was going to do if he'd succeeded in becoming Holy Roman Emperor, which I take very seriously as a proposition from Richard.Most other historians, because it's so patently ridiculous, if you look at it from a European perspective, have just said, "Oh, he got this idea that he wanted to become Holy Roman Emperor," but, of course, it was never going to happen. In Richard's mind, I think it was extremely real. Whether he really would have tried to give the English crown to Rutland, his favorite by the end of the reign, while he went off in glory to be crowned by the Pope, I don't know what was in his head. The difference with Henry is that the ambitions he eventually conceives are very England-focused, and so he can make them happen.Henry: Is there some sort of argument that, if the king hadn't won the Wars of the Roses, and the nobility had flourished, and their sons hadn't been killed, the reformation would have just been much harder to pull off here?[silence]Helen: I wonder what that would have looked like, because in a sense, the king was always going to win the Wars of the Roses, in the sense that you have to have a king. The minute you had someone left standing after that mess, that protracted mess, if he knew what he was doing, and there are arguments about the extent to which Henry VII knew what he was doing, or was doing something very different, whether or not he knew it was different, but there was always going to be an opportunity for a king to assert himself after that.Particularly, the extent to which the lesser landowners, the gentry had realized they couldn't just rely on the nobility to protect them anymore. They couldn't just follow their lord into battle and abdicate responsibility.Henry: Okay.Helen: That's an interesting--Henry: How much should we blame Edward III for all of this?Helen: For living too long and having too many sons?Henry: My argument against Edward is the Hundred Years' War, it doesn't actually go that well by the end of his reign, and it's cost too much money. Too many dukes with too much power. It's not that he had too many sons, he elevates them all and creates this insane situation. The war itself starts to tip the balance between the king and parliament, and so now you've got it from the dukes, and from the other side, and he just didn't manage the succession at all.Even though his son has died, and it really needs some kind of-- He allowed. He should have known that he was allowing a vacuum to open up where there's competition from the nobles, and from parliament, and the finances are a mess, and this war isn't there. It's just… he just leaves a disaster, doesn't he?Helen: I think I'd want to reframe that a little bit. Perhaps, I'm too much the king's friend. I think the political, and in some senses, existential dilemma for a medieval king is that the best of all possible worlds is what Edward achieves in the 1340s and the 1350s, which is, fight a war for reasons that your subjects recognize as in the common interest, in the national interest. Fight it over there so that the lands that are being devastated and the villages and towns that are being burned are not yours. Bring back lots of plunder. Everybody's getting richer and feeling very victorious.You can harness parliament. When things are going well, a medieval king and a parliament are not rivals for power. An English king working with parliament is more powerful than an English king trying to work without parliament. If things are going well, he gets more money, he can pass laws, he can enforce his will more effectively. It's win-win-win if you're ticking all those boxes.As you're pointing out, the worst of all possible worlds is to be fighting a war that's going badly. To fight a war is a big risk because either you're going to end up winning and everything's great, or if it's going badly, then you'd rather be at peace. Of course, you're not necessarily in a position to negotiate peace, depending on the terms of the war you've established.Similarly, with sons, you want heirs. You want to know the succession is safe. I think Edward's younger sons would argue with you about setting up very powerful dukes because the younger ones really-- York and Gloucester, Edmund of Langley and Thomas of Woodstock, really didn't have much in the way of an estate given to them at all, and always felt very hard done by about that. John of Gaunt is set up very well because he's married off to the heir of the Duke of Lancaster who's handily died, leaving only daughters.Henry: That's the problem, isn't it, creating that sort of impact? John of Gaunt is far too rich and powerful.Helen: You say that, except he's unfeasibly loyal. Without Gaunt, disaster happens much, much, much earlier. Gaunt is putting all those resources into the project of propping up the English state and the English crown for way longer than Richard deserves, given that Richard's trying to murder him half the time in the 1380s.Henry: [laughs] For sure. No, I agree with you there, but from Edward III's point of view, it's a mistake to make one very powerful son another quite powerful son next to-- We still see this playing out in royal family dynamics.Helen: This is the problem. What is the perfect scenario in a hereditary system where you need an heir and a spare, but even there, the spare, if he doesn't get to be the heir, is often very disgruntled. [laughs] If he does get to be the heir, as we've just said, turns out to be overconvinced of his own-Henry: Oh, indeed, yes.Helen: -specialness. Then, if you have too many spares, you run into a different kind of problem. Equally, if you don't have a hereditary system, then you have an almighty battle, as the Anglo-Saxons often did, about who's actually going to get the crown in the next generation. It's a very tricky--Henry: Is England just inherently unstable? We've got the Black Death, France is going to be a problem, whatever happens. Who is really going to come to a good fiscal position in this situation? It's no one's fault. It's just there wasn't another way out.Helen: You could say that England's remarkably-- See, I'm just playing devil's advocate the whole time.Henry: No, good.Helen: You could say England is remarkably stable in the sense that England is very unusually centralized for a medieval state at this point. It's centralized in a way that works because it's small enough to govern. It's, broadly speaking, an island. You've got to deal with the Scotts border, but it's a relatively short border. Yes, you have powerful nobles, but they are powerful nobles who, by this stage, are locked into the state. They're locked into a unified system of law. The common law rules everyone. Everyone looks to Westminster.It's very different from what the King of France has been having to face, which has been having to push his authority outward from the Île-de-France, reconquer bits of France that the English have had for a long time, impose his authority over other princes of the realm in a context where there are different laws, there are different customs, there are different languages. You could say that France is in a much more difficult and unstable situation.Of course, what we see as the tide of the war turns again in the early 15th century is precisely that France collapses into civil war, and the English can make hay again in that situation. If Henry V had not died too young with not enough sons in 1423, and particularly, if he'd left a son who grew up to be any use at all, as opposed to absolutely none-- what am I saying? I'm saying that the structure of government in England could work astonishingly well given the luck of the right man at the helm. The right man at the helm had to understand his responsibilities at home, and he had to be capable of prosecuting a successful war abroad because that is how this state works best.As you've just pointed out, prosecuting a successful war abroad is an inherently unstable scenario because no war is ever going to go in your direction the entire time. That's what Richard, who has no interest in war at all is discovering, because once the tide of war is lapping at your own shores, instead of all happening over there, it's a very, very different prospect in terms of persuading parliament to pay for it, quite understandably.You talk about the Black Death. One of the extraordinary things is looking at England in 1348, 1349, when the Black Death hits. Probably, something approaching half the population dies in 18 months. If you're looking at the progress of the war, you barely notice it happened at all. What does the government do? It snaps into action and implements a maximum wage immediately, in case [chuckles] these uppity laborers start noticing there are fewer of them, and they can ask for more money.The amount of control, at that stage at least, that the government has over a country going through an extraordinary set of challenges is quite remarkable, really.Henry: Did Bolingbroke do the right thing?Helen: I think Bolingbroke did the only possible thing, which, in some senses, equates to the right thing. If he had not come back, he would not only have been abandoning his own family, his dynasty, his inheritance, everything he'd been brought up to believe was his responsibility, but also abandoning England to what was pretty much by that stage, clearly, a situation of tyranny.The big argument is always, well, we can identify a tyrant, we have a definition of tyranny. That is, if a legitimate king rules in the common interest and according to the law, then a tyrant rules not in the common interest, and not according to the law. But then the thing that the political theorists argue about is whether or not you can actively resist a tyrant, or whether you have to wait for God to act.Then, the question is, "Might God be acting through me if I'm Bolingbroke?" That's what Bolingbroke has to hope, because if he doesn't do what he does in 1399, he is abandoning everything his whole life has been devoted to maintaining and taking responsibility for. It's quite hard to see where England would then end up, other than with somebody else trying to challenge Richard in the way that Henry does.Henry: Why was he anointed with Thomas Becket's oil?Helen: Because Richard had found it in the tower, [chuckles] and was making great play of the claims that were made for Thomas. This is one of the interesting things about Richard. He is simultaneously very interested in history, and interested in his place in history, his place in the lineage of English kings, going all the way back, particularly to the confessor to whom he looks as not only a patron saint, but as in some sense, a point of identification.He's also seeking to stop time at himself. He doesn't like to think about the future beyond himself. He doesn't show any interest in fathering an heir. His will is all about how to make permanent the judgments that he's made on his nobles. It's not about realistically what's going to happen after his death.In the course of his interest in history, he has found this vial of oil in the tower somewhere in a locked drawer with a note that says, "The Virgin gave this to Thomas Becket, and whoever is anointed with this oil shall win all his battles and shall lead England to greatness," et cetera. Richard has tried to have himself re-anointed, and even his patsy Archbishop of Canterbury that he's put in place after exiling the original one who'd stood up to him a bit.Even the new Archbishop of Canterbury says, "Sire, anointing doesn't really work like that. I'm afraid we can't do it twice." Richard has been wearing this vial round his neck in an attempt to claim that he is not only the successor to the confessor, but he is now the inheritor of this holy oil. The French king has had a holy oil for a very long time in the Cathedral of Reims, which was supposedly given to Clovis, the first king of France, by an angel, et cetera.Richard, who is always very keen on emulating, or paralleling the crown of France, is very, very keen on this. If you were Henry coming in 1399 saying, "No, God has spoken through me. The country has rallied to me. I am now the rightful king of England. We won't look too closely at my justifications for that," and you are appropriating the ceremonial of the crown, you are having yourself crowned in Westminster Abbey on the 13th of October, which is the feast day of the confessor, you are handed that opportunity to use the symbolism of this oil that Richard has just unearthed, and was trying to claim for himself. You can then say, "No, I am the first king crowned with this oil," and you're showing it to the French ambassadors and so on.If we are to believe the chroniclers, it starts making his hair fall out, which might be a contrary sign from God. It's a situation where you are usurping the throne, and what is questionable is your right to be there. Then, any symbolic prop you can get, you're going to lean on as hard as you can.Henry: A few general questions to close. Should we be more willing to open up old tombs?Helen: Yes. [laughs]Henry: Good. [laughs]Helen: I'm afraid, for me, historical curiosity is-- Our forebears in the 18th and 19th century had very few qualms at all. One of the things I love about the endless series of scholarly antiquarian articles that are-- or not so scholarly, in some cases, that are written about all the various tomb openings that went on in the 18th and 19th century, I do love the moments, where just occasionally, they end up saying, "Do you know what, lads? Maybe we shouldn't do this bit." [chuckles]They get right to the brink with a couple of tombs and say, "Oh, do you know what? This one hasn't been disturbed since 1260, whatever. Maybe we won't. We'll put it back." Mostly, they just crowbar the lid off and see what they can find, which one might regret in terms of what we might now find with greater scientific know-how, and et cetera. Equally, we don't do that kind of thing anymore unless we're digging up a car park. We're not finding things out anyway. I just love the information that comes out, so yes, for me.Henry: Dig up more tombs.Helen: Yes.Henry: What is it that you love about the Paston Letters?Helen: More or less everything. I love the language. I love the way that, even though most of them are dictated to scribes, but you can hear the dictation. You can hear individual voices. Everything we were saying about sentences. You can hear the rhythm. You can hear the speech patterns. I'm no linguistic expert, but I love seeing the different forms of spelling and how that plays out on the page.I love how recognizable they are as a family. I love the fact that we hear women's voices in a way that we very rarely do in the public records. The government which is mainly what we have to work with. I love Margaret Paston, who arrives at 18 as a new bride, and becomes the matriarch of the family. I love her relationship with her two eldest boys, John and John, and their father, John.I do wish they hadn't done that because it doesn't help those of us who are trying to write about them. I love the view you get of late medieval of 15th-century politics from the point of view of a family trying to survive it. The fact that you get tiny drops in letters that are also about shopping, or also about your sisters fall in love with someone unsuitable. Unsuitable only, I hasten to add, because he's the family bailiff, not because he isn't a wonderful and extremely able man. They all know those two things. It's just that he's a family bailiff, and therefore, not socially acceptable.I love that experience of being immersed in the world of a 15th-century gentry family, so politically involved, but not powerful enough to protect themselves, who can protect themselves in the Wars of the Roses in any case.Henry: If someone wants to read the Paston Letters, but they don't want to read Middle English, weird spelling, et cetera, is there a good edition that they can use?Helen: Yes, there is an Oxford World's Classic. They're all selected. There isn't a complete edition in modern spelling. If any publishers are listening, I would love to do one. [chuckles]Henry: Yes, let's have it.Helen: Let's have it. I would really, really love to do that. There are some very good selections. Richard Barber did one many years ago, and, of course, self-advertising. There is also my book, now more than 20 years old, about the Paston family, where I was trying to put in as much of the letters as I could. I wanted to weave the voices through. Yes, please go and read the Paston Letters in selections, in whatever form you can get them, and let's start lobbying for a complete modernized Paston.Henry: That's right. Why did you leave academia? Because you did it before it was cool.Helen: [laughs] That's very kind of you to say. My academic life was, and is very important to me, and I hate saying this now, because the academic world is so difficult now. I ended up in it almost by accident, which is a terrible thing to say now, people having to-- I never intended to be an academic. My parents were academics, and I felt I'd seen enough and wasn't sure I wanted to do that.I couldn't bear to give up history, and put in a PhD application to work with Christine Carpenter, who'd been the most inspiring supervisor when I was an undergraduate, got the place, thought, "Right, I'm just going to do a PhD." Of course, once you're doing a PhD, and everyone you know is starting to apply for early career jobs, which weren't even called early career jobs in those days, because it was a million years ago.I applied for a research fellowship, was lucky enough to get it, and then applied for a teaching job, utterly convinced, and being told by the people around me that I stood no chance of getting it, because I was way too junior, and breezed through the whole process, because I knew I wasn't going to get it, and then turned up looking for someone very junior.I got this wonderful teaching job at Sidney Sussex in Cambridge and spent eight years there, learned so much, loved working with the students. I was working very closely with the students in various ways, but I wasn't-- I'm such a slow writer, and a writer that needs to be immersed in what I was doing, and I just wasn't managing to write, and also not managing to write in the way I wanted to write, because I was becoming clearer and clearer about the fact that I wanted to write narrative history.Certainly, at that point, it felt as though writing narrative history for a general audience and being an early career academic didn't go so easily together. I think lots of people are now showing how possible it is, but I wasn't convinced I could do it. Then, sorry, this is a very long answer to what's [crosstalk] your question.Henry: That's good.Helen: I also had my son, and my then partner was teaching at a very different university, I mean, geographically different, and we were living in a third place, and trying to put a baby into that geographical [chuckles] setup was not going to work. I thought, "Well, now or never, I'll write a proposal for a book, a narrative, a book for a general readership, a narrative book about the Paxton family, because that's what I really want to write, and I'll see if I can find an agent, and I'll see if I," and I did.I found the most wonderful agent, with whose help I wrote a huge proposal, and got a deal for it two weeks before my son was due. At that point, I thought, "Okay, if I don't jump now, now or never, the stars are aligned." I've been a freelance medieval historian ever since then, touching every wood I can find as it continues to be possible. I am very grateful for those years in Cambridge. They were the making of me in terms of training and in terms of teaching.I certainly think without teaching for those years, I wouldn't be anywhere near as good a writer, because you learn such a lot from talking to, and reading what students produce.Henry: How do you choose your subjects now? How do you choose what to write about?Helen: I follow my nose, really. It's not very scientific.Henry: Why should it be?Helen: Thank you. The book, bizarrely, the book that felt most contingent, was the one I wrote after the Paston book, because I knew I'd written about the Pastons in my PhD, and then again more of it in the monograph that was based on my PhD. I knew having written about the Pastons in a very academic, analytical way, contributing to my analysis of 15th-century politics. I knew I wanted to put them at the center and write about them. That was my beginning point.The big question was what to do next, and I was a bit bamboozled for a while. The next book I ended up writing was She-Wolves, which is probably, until now, my best-known book. It was the one that felt most uncertain to me, while I was putting it together, and that really started from having one scene in my head, and it's the scene with which the book opens. It's the scene of the young Edward VI in 1553, Henry VIII's only son, dying at the age of 15.Suddenly, me suddenly realizing that wherever you looked on the Tudor family tree at that point, there were only women left. The whole question of whether a woman could rule was going to have to be answered in some way at that point, and because I'm a medievalist, that made me start thinking backwards, and so I ended up choosing some medieval queens to write about, because they've got their hands on power one way or another.Until very close to finishing it, I was worried that it wouldn't hang together as a book, and the irony is that it's the one that people seem to have taken to most. The next book after that grew out of that one, because I found myself going around talking about She-Wolves, and saying repeatedly, "The problem these queens faced was that they couldn't lead an army on the battlefield."Women couldn't do that. The only medieval woman who did that was Joan of Arc, and look what happened to her. Gradually, I realized that I didn't really know what had happened to her. I mean, I did know what--Henry: Yes, indeed.Helen: I decided that I really wanted to write about her, so I did that. Then, having done that, and having then written a very short book about Elizabeth I, that I was asked to write for Penguin Monarchs, I realized I'd been haunted all this time by Richard and Henry, who I'd been thinking about and working on since the very beginning of my PhD, but I finally felt, perhaps, ready to have a go at them properly.It's all been pretty organic apart from She-Wolves, which was the big, "What am I writing about next?" That took shape slowly and gradually. Now, I'm going to write about Elizabeth I properly in a-Henry: Oh, exciting.Helen: -full-scale book, and I decided that, anyway, before I wrote this last one, but I-- It feels even righter now, because I Am Richard II, Know Ye Not That, feels even more intensely relevant having now written about Richard and Henry, and I'm quite intimidated because Elizabeth is quite intimidating, but I think it's good, related by your subjects.[laughter]Henry: Have you read the Elizabeth Jenkins biography?Helen: Many, many years ago. It's on my shelf here.Henry: Oh, good.Helen: In fact, so it's one of the things I will be going back to. Why do you ask particularly? I need--Henry: I'm a big Elizabeth Jenkins fan, and I like that book particularly.Helen: Wonderful. Well, I will be redoubled in my enthusiasm.Henry: I look forward to seeing what you say about it. What did you learn from Christine Carpenter?Helen: Ooh. Just as precision was the word that came into my head when you asked me about Hilary Mantel, the word that comes into my head when you ask about Christine is rigor. I think she is the most rigorous historical thinker that I have ever had the privilege of working with and talking to. I am never not on my toes when I am writing for, talking to, reading Christine. That was an experience that started from the first day I walked into her room for my first supervision in 1987.It was really that rigor that started opening up the medieval world to me, asking questions that at that stage I couldn't answer at all, but suddenly, made everything go into technicolor. Really, from the perspective that I had been failing to ask the most basic questions. I would sometimes have students say to me, "Oh, I didn't say that, because I thought it was too basic."I have always said, "No, there is no question that is too basic." Because what Christine started opening up for me was how does medieval government work? What are you talking about? There is the king at Westminster. There is that family there in Northumberland. What relates the two of them? How does this work? Think about it structurally. Think about it in human terms, but also in political structural terms, and then convince me that you understand how this all goes together. I try never to lose that.Henry: Helen Castor, thank you very much.Helen: Thank you so much. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.commonreader.co.uk/subscribe

To support the ministry of Celebration Church please click here: https://subsplash.com/celebrationchurchtn/giveSubscribe to receive our latest content: https://tr.ee/2b6XuDKlaS...FOLLOW US►► Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/rwmccollum/►► Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/rwmccollum/►► Twitter: https://twitter.com/rwmccollum#celebrationchurchnashville #online #jesus #celebrationchurch #church #onlinechurch #sermon #nashville....Truly, you are a God who hides yourself, O God of Israel, the Savior.Isaiah 45:14 (ESV)Isaiah's insight into the mystery of the God who hides Himself is given in the middle of a prophecy concerning Cyrus the Great, the pagan king God would use to allow His people to return to their homeland after 70 years of political captivity. The prophecy came to pass. Might God be doing it again?“God is in total control. He makes that very clear in the Bible where he tells us that he raises up kings and destroys kingdoms. He even calls the pagan king Cyrus His ‘anointed'; His servant to do the things that He wants him to do.” Ken HammWe hope you enjoy Part 3 of our teaching series, “Jesus Incognito”, a fascinating message entitled... “Cyrus the Great, Donald J. Trump and the God Who Hides Himself”.

THCC HuskSpeaker: Bex WhiteSermon Recorded on: 23/02/2025Main Passage: Luke 4:31-44Reflection:We had to reach around a lot of thorns to get to the fruit this week. Were there any aspects of the sermon that were hard for you to hear? Might God be inviting you to bring those things to Him? If so, how will you do that?We heard time and again how Jesus has the last word. Where in your life do you need encouragement to pray for His will to be done and His kingdom to be done? Who in your life needs to hear His words of release?

Send us a textGood morning! Thank you for taking a few minutes to listen. If you are interested in the Daily Bible Devotional, you can find it at the links below:Amazon - (paperback, hardcover, and Kindle)Spiritbuilding.com - (premium quality paperback)Youtube Video Introducing the ContentFeel free to reach out with any questions: emersonk78@me.comLuke 1 Luke opens his letter by noting that he has investigated things carefully so he can report “the exact truth.” He details the events surrounding the birth of John the Baptist and the conception of Jesus in the longest chapter in the New Testament. Elizabeth is barren until an angel appears to her and Zacharias and tells them they will have a son named John. Six months later, the angel Gabriel appears to Mary. He tells her she will conceive of one named Jesus, “the Son of the Most High,” who will reign forever! Mary visits Elizabeth and offers a beautiful prayer of praise to God. After Mary's departure, John is born, and his father Zacharias prophesies concerning redemption, mercy, forgiveness, and peace! The age of the Savior begins! Luke sets out on a specific mission with this gospel. This record of the life of Jesus provides carefully researched facts intended to build the faith of a man named Theophilus, and it can do so for all who read it today. It begins by showing God's supernatural involvement in the birth of John, the forerunner for Jesus. Angels from heaven appear to Elizabeth and Mary. Elizabeth's womb is open. Zacharias is struck mute for a time. Later he regains his speech, is “filled with the Holy Spirit”, and begins to prophesy. The story of Jesus begins with God's hand directly involved in the affairs of mankind. God actively accomplishes redemption for those who would see His works and believe.   Benevolent Lord, among all the gifts You have given, there are none as valuable as Your Son. We praise You for Gabriel's message to Mary, that Jesus would rule and “His kingdom would have no end.” Living in that kingdom is our daily and constant source of peace. We see Your consistency and wisdom in bringing John the Baptist into the world to fulfill prophecy and prepare the way for Jesus. His teachings call people to repent and surrender their lives to Christ. Lord help us to receive that message and prepare ourselves to be led by the Savior.   Thought Questions for the Day: -       Elizabeth and Zacharias were “both righteous in the sight of God” and they were blessed. Does God hear and help people of faith today? -       Zacharias questioned the angel's words and was struck mute for nine months. Might God still react like that if we doubt His promises? -       Mary praised God, believing she carried the Messiah. Why is it important to rejoice in faith even before we see incredible outcomes?

Will Christians give an account to God? What is Hebrews 4:13 about? Did Paul disobey God in Acts 18 by going to Asia against His instruction? Is this why Paul was stricken with a difficult circumstance? Might God do the same to us if we disobey? Who is the false prophet in Revelation 2? Could it be Paul? I suffer from scrupulosity (a religious OCD). As a result, I constantly analyze my past performance and doubt my salvation. Can you help me? To support this ministry financially, visit: https://www.oneplace.com/donate/1258/29

Will Christians give an account to God? What is Hebrews 4:13 about? Did Paul disobey God in Acts 18 by going to Asia against His instruction? Is this why Paul was stricken with a difficult circumstance? Might God do the same to us if we disobey? Who is the false prophet in Revelation 2? Could it be Paul? I suffer from scrupulosity (a religious OCD). As a result, I constantly analyze my past performance and doubt my salvation. Can you help me? To support this ministry financially, visit: https://www.oneplace.com/donate/1258/29

Our text is from Ruth 2:19-23 Naomi asked her, “Where did you glean today? Where did you work? Blessed be the man who took notice of you!” Then Ruth told her mother-in-law about the one at whose place she had been working. “The name of the man I worked with today is Boaz,” she said. “The Lord bless him!” Naomi said to her daughter-in-law. “He has not stopped showing his kindness to the living and the dead.” She added, “That man is our close relative; he is one of our guardian-redeemers.” Then Ruth the Moabite said, “He even said to me, ‘Stay with my workers until they finish harvesting all my grain.'” Naomi said to Ruth her daughter-in-law, “It will be good for you, my daughter, to go with the women who work for him, because in someone else's field you might be harmed.” So, Ruth stayed close to the women of Boaz to glean until the barley and wheat harvests were finished. And she lived with her mother-in-law. Often, lunch is just lunch. But sometimes, its much more. When Ruth hands Naomi her leftover lunch, Naomi clues in that something is afoot. This lunch is not just a lunch. Her questions, “Where did you glean today? Where did you work?” are not the routine, “How was your day?” sort of questions. No. Naomi recognizes that there is a mystery here, most likely, a divine mystery. She wants answers. This leftover lunch is the turning point of the story. Naomi's spirit rose as she saw the generous results of Ruth's gleaning. But with the lunch, she recognizes her life might not be over, declaring, “He has not stopped showing his kindness to the living and the dead.” But who is he? The Hebrew text leaves this ambiguous. “He” could refer to either God or Boaz. Is it left ambiguous on purpose? Are we meant to think it refers to both? I wonder. It would certainly fit the story. In 1:6, Naomi hears that God has come to the aid of his people, so she returns. Now, a God type kindness reaches these two widows through a human. God's aid reaches Naomi only when someone acts with kindness. I think we are meant to hear the story this way. She speaks her first words of hope since she's left Moab. This barley and this lunch are creating hairline fractures in the shell of bitterness encrusting her soul. When she hears that Boaz is the one responsible for this abundance, the fractures become cracks. She knows this kind of kindness. This is the same kindness which brought Ruth to Bethlehem with her. It is the same kindness with which God blesses his people with blessings they do not deserve. Naomi recognized that Boaz was acting out of a godly mercy. You see, Boaz had no legal obligation to do these things. He was a close relative, but not too close. He could have treated Ruth like any other woman gleaning in his fields. But he didn't. He went far beyond the call of duty. Naomi's hope blossomed and she gave voice to something that could bring real hope to these two widows: the kinsman-redeemer. Land and children were the future for any Israelite family. Naomi and Ruth had neither. In such a situation, a brother or nearest relative could step in to provide these (Leviticus 25:25; Deuteronomy 25:5-6). But nobody has stepped up to help them out. When they die, Elimelech's family will die with them. Naomi knows this. But now her hope is awakened because Boaz appears noble enough to fulfill the role of the kinsman redeemer. So, she advices Ruth to stick close to him. The least that will happen is that she will be safe. But there could be much more that happens as well. For today, take time to ponder the kindness of God. Whom has he used to bring it to you? Did you receive it or reject it? Might God want to use you to bring his kindness to someone else? Who knows what an ordinary lunch might become? Go now with God's blessing: May the peace of the Lord Christ go with you: wherever he may send you. May he guide you through the wilderness: protect you through the storm. May he bring you home rejoicing; at the wonders he has shown you. May he bring you home rejoicing once again into our doors.

This week, we are carrying on with series on "God has a Name." In today's talk, Hilton Sonday speaks on the Mighty God.

Discussion QuestionsSermon Overview Rejoice in God's might, mercy, and memory, shown in sending Jesus.The story: the coming of Jesus is cause for joy (vv. 39-45)The song: our joy is fueled by what God's sending of Jesus reveals about himself (vv. 46-56)A. Might: God has done great things to save (vv. 46-49)B. Mercy: God shows his favor to those who fear him (no matter how low in the world's eyes) (vv. 50-53)C. Memory: God remembers his promise to help his believing people (vv. 54-55)Digging Deeper    Read Luke 1:39-56Rejoice in God's might, mercy, and memory, shown in sending Jesus.1. The story: the coming of Jesus is cause for joy (vv. 39-45)For some of us, the Christmas season can be hard for various reasons. And yet, regardless of our circumstances, the coming of Jesus should be a cause for great joy in our hearts. How does Jesus coming to earth give you joy?    What is one step you could take this Christmas season to create time and space to reflect on how the coming of Jesus should lead to greater joy in our hearts?  Luke 1:45 says, “And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what was spoken to her from the Lord.” In your own life, when have you seen the blessing of taking God at his Word?2. The song: our joy is fueled by what God's sending of Jesus reveals about himself (vv. 46-56)A. Might: God has done great things to save (vv. 46-49)How is God's might revealed in his sending of Jesus to earth as a baby? Mary's heart overflows in song to God as she marvels that God would choose her to bear the Messiah. Though not in the same way as he did with Mary, it is God's intention to use each of us to further his kingdom purposes on earth. How have you seen God use you for his purposes in the world (be it in a big way or small)? B. Mercy: God shows his favor to those who fear him (no matter how low in the world's eyes) (vv. 50-53)How is God's mercy revealed in his sending of Jesus to earth as a baby? Why is God's mercy for those who fear him (and implicitly not for those who don't)? Read vv. 51-53 again. How have you seen God do what is described here? C. Memory: God remembers his promise to help his believing people (vv. 54-55)In vv. 54-55 Mary said, “He has helped his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy, as he spoke to our fathers, to Abraham, and to his offspring forever.” How did God do this through his sending of Jesus into the world as a baby? God sent his Son into the world on a mission (cf. Luke 19:10). How should God's purposes in sending Jesus into the world shape our purposes as individuals, Gospel Communities, and as a local church?   Who could you share this story within the coming week? Prayer

In Numbers 13, we find God's chosen people in Paran, standing on the verge of the Promised Land of Canaan. And we might imagine standing in anticipation, waiting, looking off in the distance, for the site of twelve men. For 39 days they've been awaiting these 12 men. Now it is day 40, and the twelve men begin to appear on the horizon. From the way it looks, these twelve men are not empty-handed. Far from it, in fact. Some of them are hauling sacks of pomegranates. Others are carrying baskets of figs. At least two of them are shouldering a pole from which hangs a cluster of grapes larger than anything they've ever seen before. The 12 men reach the outer camp, move in toward the center where they find Moses and Aaron, and then, begin to share the news of all they've seen throughout their 40-day exploration in the Promised Land. Numbers 13:27, ”And they told him [Moses], “We came to the land to which you sent us. It flows with milk and honey, and this is its fruit…” But before smiles can appear among the people, and relief and rejoicing can erupt within the camp, down like a hammer falls the killer of all good news…the word however. “We came to the land to which you sent us. It flows with milk and honey, and this is its fruit. However…” However what?Verse 28,“However, the people who dwell in the land are strong, and the cities are fortified and very large. And besides, we saw the descendants of Anak there. The Amalekites dwell in the land of the Negeb. The Hittites, the Jebusites, and the Amorites dwell in the hill country. And the Canaanites dwell by the sea, and along the Jordan...”The land is good, say the twelve…however…In this morning's sermon, we're going to witness one of the greatest tragedies ever told. A tragedy not brought on by famine, disease, or sword. But by a far graver foe. One that had been lurking within each one of those Israelites waiting in the wilderness that day, and, in varying degrees, lurks in each and every one of us here this morning.And that is unbelief. Unbelief. And for those who are helped by outlines, this story is going to teach us four things about unbelief: (1) What unbelief cuts out, (2) adds in, (3) and leads to, and (4) how we should respond to unbelief. What unbelief cuts out, adds in, and leads to, and how we should respond to it.So, the report given by the spies is that the land is good, however… And with that one word “however,” at least 10 of those 12 total spies betray their forgone conclusion that what lies before them in Canaan is not a land of promise, but a land of sure and certain death. Well, upon reception of such a foreboding report, you could imagine the people begin to pick up on the doubts of those ten men. They begin to exchange glances with one another. Whispers are heard. A general sense of gloom begins to spread amongst the camp. Caleb, one of the other spies, stands up and tries to quiet the growing sense of despair, but his voice is quickly drowned out by the other ten who counter, Numbers 13:31, “We are not able to go up against the people, for…” and now just pause. What's going on here? Why has the mood so suddenly changed? Unbelief has descended upon the camp. And what does it cause the people to do? We said this story is going to teach us four things about unbelief. Here's the first…1. What Unbelief Cuts OutSee, because here's the thing, this peoples' unbelief in this moment — “We are not able to go up against the people” — is not taking place within a historical vacuum. Like, they weren't all just suddenly dropped into Paran without a backstory. They've not just been heading out to the Promised Land on a whim. But what unbelief has done, in a matter of seconds, it seems, is cut out from these peoples' minds the memory of all the Lord their God has told them regarding this land — namely, the fact that for over the last 800 years, God has been assuring them, “I am going to give this land to you.” Stretching all the way back to the day God first spoke to their father Abraham, Genesis 12:7, “To your offspring I will give this land.” And spoke again to him in Genesis 13:15, 17: “For all the land that you see I will give to you and to your offspring forever…Arise, walk through the length and the breadth of the land, for I will give it to you.” And again, to him, in Genesis 17:8:“I will give to you and to your offspring after you the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession, and I will be their God.” And when Abraham was no more, God kept the promise going with Jacob, saying to him, Genesis 28:10-13:“I am the Lord, the God of Abraham your father and the God of Isaac. The land on which you lie I will give to you and to your offspring.”And as Jacob's people, the Israelites, traveled down in Egypt…and found themselves overpowered and enslaved there…even as all hope of their ever returning to the land seemed totally lost…even there God spoke to Moses from a burning bush, Exodus 3:17:“I promise that I will bring you up out of the affliction of Egypt to the land of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, a land flowing with milk and honey.”He even promised to Moses, Exodus 23:20-24:Behold, I send an angel before you to guard you on the way and to bring you to the place that I have prepared…“When my angel goes before you and brings you to the Amorites and the Hittites and the Perizzites and the Canaanites, the Hivites and the Jebusites, and I blot them out, you shall not bow down to their gods nor serve them, nor do as they do, but you shall utterly overthrow them and break their pillars in pieces.” Why just a few chapters back we heard Moses say to his father in law, Numbers 10:29, “We are setting out for the place of which the Lord said, ‘I will give it to you.' Come with us, and we will do good to you, for the Lord has promised good to Israel.” And if that weren't enough, just forty days earlier, just as these twelve were setting out, God spoke to Moses, “Send men to spy out the land of Canaan, which I am giving to the people of Israel.” I mean, how many times is God going to say it? “I'm going to give it to you — you just have to trust me!”But when push comes to shove, they won't. They won't. Instead, in an act of high-handed, widespread, shocking unbelief, the people pull an Adam and Eve — we trust our understanding concerning this thing, not yours. Unbelief, my brothers and sisters, is an old, old story. What does unbelief do? First, unbelief cuts out all recollection of God's promises to us, wipes them from our memory, causes spiritual amnesia to the point where we say, “We are not able to go up against the people…In fact, we're not sure why we ever thought we could.” What does unbelief do? First, unbelief cuts out all recollection of God's promises to us. And, unbelief cuts out all recollection of God's presence with us.God HimselfLook with me again at Numbers 13:31,“We are not able to go up against the people, for they are stronger than we are.” Notice, they are stronger than we. “But where is God?” He's entirely absent from view. All the people instead is us and them and no other. Which is amazing considering that this whole scene is unfolding before Moses and Aaron who, as we're told earlier in Numbers, camp just outside The Tent of Meeting. So somewhere in the background of this whole thing are the Levites, the priests, the Tent of Meeting itself, and the cloud of God's glory emanating out from it. But none of that makes any difference in this moment. For this people, it is as if they've suddenly awoken from a heavy sleep and concluded God's presence among them had only been a dream.And in such a godless frame of mind, all this people can arrive upon is a conclusion drawn by simple math, “We are not able to go up against the people, for they are stronger than we are.” You ever do that kind of math? You ever forget to consider God and his power and promise over your life?What does unbelief do? Unbelief cuts out all recollection of God's promises to us, and God's presence among us. That's what unbelief cuts out. What does unbelief add in to fill the void?2. What Unbelief Adds InSee if you can tell for yourself. Go with me to verse 32. Numbers 13:32-33,“The land, through which we have gone to spy it out, is a land that devours its inhabitants, and all the people that we saw in it are of great height. And there we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim), and we seemed to ourselves like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them.”God, we might say, has a stabilizing effect when it comes to our understanding of the world. When he is in our worldview, and in its center, the peoples, places, and things all round him remain in proper size, scale, and proportion. But, when God is cut out, everything destabilizes — causing the peoples, places, and things around us to begin to balloon far out of proportion. To play off Ed Welch's phrase, “when God becomes small, people become big.” That's exactly what's going on here. With God cut out from view, the Israelites look upon the people in the land and think, “They look big. They look scary.” As we read in verse 33, “We seemed [when we looked upon them] to ourselves like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them.” We seemed to ourselves like easy-to-squash bugs, and they thought the same. What does unbelief add in? Unbelief adds in a picture of man the size of God himself. See, because here's the thing: God has designed you and I to have God in our worldview. Should we choose to take him out, the position of deity does not vanish. It simply gets replaced by another. And right now, those peoples in Canaan have become that replacement. They're larger than life in our minds. Before them, we're tiny grasshoppers. So, unbelief adds in a picture of man the size of God himself. It also adds in a distorted view of what life was like prior to God.Distorted View of Life before GodTurn with me to Numbers 14:2,“And all the people of Israel grumbled against Moses and Aaron. The whole congregation said to them, “Would that we had died in the land of Egypt! Or would that we had died in this wilderness!”Don't miss this. They're basically saying, “Our life in Egypt as slaves was better than life right now with God. And our life would've been better had God never intervened. And if God would've just minded his own business and left us alone, oh how much simpler and easier things could have been for us. But it's only been since God's taken over that all these problems have come in.”This is a distorted view of what life was like prior to God. A view that labels God, rather than our sin, as the problem. Unbelief peppers us with this distortion of memory, in order to add in its final, most vile ingredient of all — the view of God as our enemy. God as enemyNumbers 14:3,“Why is the Lord bringing us into this land, to fall by the sword? Our wives and our little ones will become a prey.”Who is God in this picture? A God who tells his people of a good land, only to bring them into a land that, verse 32, “devours inhabitants.” A God who lifts his peoples' hopes up high, only to send them crashing down. A God not of bless you and keep you, lift up his countenance and give you peace, but curse you and disappoint you, lift up his anger and pour out his wrath to you.See, with God's good promises and good presence cut out. Unbelief pulls a slight of hand — adding in man as God, the view of life without God as the good life, and a skewed picture of a god whose only enjoyment is to bring us pain. Have you ever found yourself picturing God this way? That's what unbelief cuts out and adds in. Now, third, what unbelief ultimately leads to.3. What Unbelief Leads ToFor this I'll have us go to verse 21. Numbers 14:21, where God says, “But truly, as I live, and as all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the Lord...” — And you'll want to note the irony there because there's more of that coming — God says that all the earth, which includes Canaan, will be filled with his glory. The Israelites are making the claim that Canaan will continue to be filled with the glory of these enemy nations. God says, “No it won't! My glory will go forth into it, and, from there, into all the world.” “Truly, as I live, and as all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the Lord…[but]…” Verse 22,“None of the men who have seen my glory and my signs that I did in Egypt and in the wilderness, and yet have put me to the test these ten times and have not obeyed my voice, shall see the land that I swore to give to their fathers. And none of those who despised me shall see it.”But rather, verse 29: “Your dead bodies shall fall in this wilderness, and of all your number, listed in the census from twenty years old and upward, who have grumbled against me not one shall come into the land where I swore that I would make you dwell,”There were six hundred thousand men numbered in that census back in Numbers 1. Six hundred thousand men who were to follow the Lord wherever he called them. Six hundred thousand men who were to trust in the Lord no matter what enemy or danger laid before them. Six hundred thousand men who were so close to finally experiencing the joy of seeing God's promise to them fulfilled. Six hundred thousand men who'll become six hundred thousand desert graves in as little as 40 years. Where does unbelief lead to? Death apart from God. To the people who had said, Numbers 14:2, “Would that we had died in this wilderness!” God says, “okay, you will.” To the people who had said, “Our little ones will become a prey [if they follow God].” God says, no, they won't, but, as verse 24 tells us, all of Caleb's descendants will possess the land, and as the book of Joshua shows us, so will all of this generation's descendants as well. But as for them, they will die in the desert. So will all who ultimately fail to trust God. This is unbelief's end — death apart from God.So, we've seen what unbelief cuts out, adds in, and leads to. Fourth and finally, how should we respond to unbelief?4. How to Respond to UnbeliefAnd it's simply this: when unbelief threatens to cut out God's promises and add in a false view of God, belief counters by taking hold of God's promises and reasserting God's true revelation of himself. And that is exactly what Caleb and Moses do in this story. Taking hold of God's promises and reasserting God's true revelation of himself.CalebWe see the taking hold of God's promises with Caleb. And, you know, this is of special significance to me because I named my son after this man. (Which, in a way, is a feat, because as a former fifth grade teacher, you tend to have a lot of boys names already scratched from the list by the time it comes to naming your own child. Can't name him that. Can't name him that. Certainly can't name him that.)But when my wife and I went to name our son, we named him Caleb because, as his parents, we want him, and indeed all our children, to grow up and respond to unbelief like Caleb of Numbers 14 did. As one of your pastors, I too want all of us to grow more and more to respond to unbelief like Caleb of Numbers 14 did. See, because when Caleb is outnumbered 10 to 1, and the ten are making that claim that, “The land is good, however…” Caleb does not buckle under the pressure. He doesn't simply go along with the crowd. He stands up and says, Numbers 13:30,“Let us go up at once and occupy it for we are well able to overcome it.”And when he hears, Numbers 13:32, “this is a land that devours its inhabitants.” He responds, Numbers 14:7,“The land, which we passed through to spy it out, is an exceedingly good land. If the Lord delights in us, he will bring us into this land and give it to us, a land that flows with milk and honey.”Caleb knows that this is precisely what God has already promised to do for them. And when cowardice begins to claim, Numbers 13:33, “We were like grasshoppers compared to them.” Then with courage, he proclaims, Numbers 14:9, “Do not fear the people of the land, for they are bread for us...”And when his fellow companions say, Numbers 14:3, “The Lord is bringing us [in] to fall by the sword,” he remembers the covenant, the tent of meeting, the cloud of glory and says, Numbers 14:9, “…Their protection is removed from them, and the Lord is with us.”Caleb shows us how to respond to unbelief by taking hold of God's promises — “he's going to bring us into the land just as he said he would.”MOSESMoses shows us how to respond to unbelief by reasserting God's true revelation of himself. See, after the Israelites fail to trust God, God could've totally destroyed them right then and there. One reason he doesn't is because Moses intercedes before God and pleads on their behalf. In so doing, he calls upon God's passion for his glory among the peoples', Numbers 14:15, “Now if you kill this people as one man, then the nations who have heard your fame will say, ‘It is because the Lord was not able to bring this people into the land that he swore to give to them that he has killed them in the wilderness.'”Moses reasserts what he knows to be true about God — his desire to be glorified among the peoples', and the fact that he's hitched his glory to this particular people, Israel. He continues, verse 17: “And now, please let the power of the Lord be great as you have promised, saying, [so he's reasserting what God has already revealed to him concerning himself, namely that he is, verse 18, the Lord who is] ‘…slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love, forgiving iniquity and transgression, but he will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, to the third and the fourth generation.'”Moses reasserts, God is not our enemy seeking to disappoint us and bring us pain. He is our God who is slow to anger, abounding in steadfast love, and who pardons even this fallen, faithless, wayward people. ApplicationHow do you respond to unbelief? You respond by taking hold of God's promises, as Caleb did, and reasserting God's true revelation of himself, as Moses did.With that, I want to close with two brief notes of application — one for the Christians in this room, one for those here who've yet to trust Christ. For Christians, ask yourself: where do you see unbelief in your life right now? You've trusted Jesus, he's got a hold of you, and yet for all of us this morning there are yet areas of our life, areas of our heart, where unbelief still reigns. Where is it in you?In your continuing to pursue pleasure in certain sins? Perhaps not believing if you were to fully and finally turn your back on that sin that God would be enough for you? If that is you, might God be calling you today to trust him to be enough to once-and-for-all put that sin away. To say, “God, I know that I will not lack so long as I'm with you.”Is unbelief in your life in terms of a job you want, a spouse you want, a family you want? You've been trusting in God for some time now but recently you've felt the pull to stop trusting God and begin putting things into your own hands instead. Begin making little exceptions, little allowances, slight loosening of your morals, boundaries, and non-negotiables. If that is you, might God be calling you today to recommit your trust in him. To say, “God, I'll continue to follow you whether you change my circumstances or not.”Is unbelief in your life causing you to play it safe? To avoid risk? With regard to making disciples, with regard to living on mission, with regard to giving toward ministry to the unreached, or going yourself to do ministry to the unreached? If that is you, might God be calling you today to pray, seek counsel, and risk if God continues to say “go.” Say to God, “God, if you call me to go, I'll go.”Last word, for non-Christians. Might God be calling you to make today the day you first put your trust in him? I urge you, do not go another day in the wilderness of unbelief. Do not take another step toward death apart from God. Turn from self, turn to God, receive his invitation into the true promised land — heaven with God forever. Now, in just a moment, we're going to be joined up here by a few individuals who have, indeed, turned from self, turned to God, and received his invitation into the true promised land. And they're wanting to be baptized as an outward demonstration of that inward reality. And as we witness these friends going down into the water and coming up again, let us remember, we who trust in God do not die in the wilderness apart from God. But rise to heaven to be with God forever. Let's pray.

In Genesis 22, Abraham faces his greatest trial of all: God calls him to sacrifice (literally) his miracle son, Isaac. How could a good God ask such a thing? Why would Abraham ever go along with it? Might God ever ask us to do the same? In today's message pastor Dan explains what's really going on in this disconcerting passage. -- GIVE: Visit www.connectcalgary.ca/give to help share #LifeOverflowing across Canada. -- NEXT STEPS: Interested in learning more about Connect Church? Simply click this link to see who we are, where we're headed, and how you can be involved! https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLRrKGtjjN9G6vCs4Kd-H9zJL6i197xdmK

Lent I – B 02/18/24 Our Gospel lesson today puts Jesus in the wilderness. It is not a wilderness that we are used to in our part of the country. In our wilderness we think of different kinds of trees, streams or lakes. It is a place where hopefully we can experience peace and calmness. This is not the wilderness that Jesus was experiencing. His wilderness is often described as a desert with probably only small bushes, if even that and little to no water close by. It also says in our Gospel lesson that Jesus was tested or tempted by satan. It doesn't sound like peace and calmness to me. Instead, it sounds like constant agitation and a climate that can be difficult to survive in. So then, how can we relate to this type of wilderness, where there was probably no snow. One of my Old Testament professors at the Moravian Seminary suggested that this wilderness is akin to the world we live in. Not the physical climate necessarily, but the cultural and political climate that we have today. The division in our country continues to grow. I fear for our country while going through this presidential election. We will have strong people on both sides and many who will be apathetic and think what is the purpose of voting. Voting is important. I would never tell you who to vote for, but only what to consider when you vote. Gun violence continues and this past week was the one year anniversary of it at MSU. We heard about the gun violence in Kansas City this past week and this past week another college. This has become a political issue and Christians are divided on this and so many things. A threat to our national security was in the news this past week. All of the isms are alive and active. The world is filled with war, Ukraine and Russia, Israel and Hamas, the bombings in the Red Sea and our retaliation. Our government can't decide on how to or not to assist. It has become more about politics. Please notice that I have not said democrat or republican. I believe all parties need to put aside something in order to work for the safety and betterment of our country which may then be more in line with God's law. I do believe satan is alive and active in all of this unrest. We are being tested. Might God be saying to us how are we going to keep our covenant based on the two great commandments? Now, does this sound like the wilderness that Jesus was experiencing, where there was not much peace or calmness as he was being tested or tempted also not to live according to God's law, God's covenant. What else does Mark say about Jesus' time in the wilderness? Matthew and Luke elaborate on three specific temptations. Mark says he was with the wild beasts and the angels waited on him. There are a number of ways that we could look at the wild beasts. One is that they were in harmony with Jesus and maybe even somehow served him. Another way is that Jesus learned to live with wild beasts. In our wilderness there are people that we are required to interact with that we don't trust or clash with and we need to learn some way of relating to them. The angels waited on him. We might picture the angels bringing him food and water. They may wash his feet. Whatever ways that we can imagine that could have happened as Mark does not define how they waited on him. Are there not days that we could use someone to wait on us? Frankly even going out to eat, where you don't have to cook or clean up can be, being waited on. At night, maybe even a libation. I believe if we are ready to receive it God does provide angels waiting on us through others. This wilderness that we live in also brings us pain and sickness. Most of us have been there or are there and have experienced this. One of our own families, the Kopf family has experienced pain, sickness and death. This is when we can be lifted up on Eagle's wings and be held in the palm of God's hand. This comes from the familiar Psalm 91 which will the Psalm for Lent 1 next year. God can and does all of this, but what can we do here and now in the wilderness? The Psalm for today is one to pray. Some have suggested that it is possible that Jesus prayed this Psalm in the wilderness. This Psalm is classified as a lament. The Psalm singer begins, To you, O Yahweh, I lift up my soul. Soul is defined as whole being. I am turning my whole being over to you God, is essentially what they are saying. I don't know where else to turn. When we can do this we are ready to say, Make me to know your ways, O Lord, teach me your paths. Yes this is our verse for Lent. This ‘to know', is not only knowledge, but it is asking God to teach us to the very core of our being. This relates to the intimacy that I was talking about in last week's sermon. It is when we open ourselves up that we are better able to see God's path for our lives and for our beloved community. Our ability to be taught is that we acknowledge that we do not have all the answers and are open to learning. When we look at our wilderness, our reality is that we are still sinful people, and we are not seeing God's way clear enough. Have we figured out yet that if and when we are willing to learn to God's ways, that it involves change on us as individuals and as a beloved community? When we learn new things about groups of people, our thinking changes as well as our language and actions. In order for growth to happen in any area of our life, first we learn and then we make changes. Changes have been made here at Fatih and will continue to be made. This only occurs after we learn to know God's ways. I challenge us during this Lenten season to practice turning our lives over to God in Jesus Christ. Then we are more ready to pray, make me to know your ways, O God. Teach me your paths. In order to live in our wilderness today this is what we are called to do.  

In today's sermon, pastor Abie Kulynych ends our exploration of the four names of God as revealed in Isaiah 9:6, Wonderful Counselor, Might God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace, and speaks of Jesus' rest and shalom that we can enter in as we put our trust in Him as “The Prince of Peace.” 

In today's sermon, our CORF Speaker Jonathan Cornelius continues with our exploration of the four names of God as revealed in Isaiah 9:6, Wonderful Counselor, Might God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace, and speaks of Jesus' loving care as our “Everlasting Father.” He argues that this name is related to the character of Jesus as the Good Shepherd.

Mighty God Peter Kim Isaiah 9:1-7

Mighty God | Isaiah 9:6In today's sermon, our Discipleship Pastor Joanne DiLeo continues with our exploration of the four names of God as revealed in Isaiah 9:6, Wonderful Counselor, Might God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace, and speaks of Jesus' might expressed in His humility, “Might God.” 

When we're young, we're warned against asking too many questions. We're told that it's annoying; that it can even be intrusive. Some of us were even warned that “curiosity killed the cat.” But as we get older, our questions don't go away. And the big questions? The ones about life, about purpose, about God? They only get bigger…and the answers get more elusive. But the truth is, curiosity is good. We were made to explore, to want to know more about the world around us…and even the God who created it all. Over the course of this series, we'll create intentional space to ask those hard questions and discover answers through exploration. When we ask the hard questions (and don't shy away from the answers) we find new realizations that have the potential to transform us. Join us this Sunday as we begin exploring God together! Recorded live at CrossWinds Church on November 12th , 2023.

This is a special day for Redemptorists around the world.  On this day, 291 years ago, our founder, St. Alphonsus Liguori and five companions; Fr. Giovanni Mazzini, Vincencio Mannarini, Fr. Piatro Romano, fifty-year old Giovanni Battista de Donato, and aspirant to the priesthood, Silvestro Tosquez, gathered around a humble altar with Bishop Falcoia presiding and began the Congregation of the Most Holy Savior.  It was soon made known that there was another religious congregation with the name, Holy Savior, so the name was changed to the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer, commonly known as the Redemptorists.  You can imagine the scene when thirty-six-year-old Alphonsus left his family behind in Naples.  There were tears, of course, but he was determined to leave his Neapolitan gentleman's life behind.  He left on a donkey with two companions by his side.  They were headed for the mountain village of Scala on the Amalfi Coast of Italy.  They did not stop at the beautiful cathedral of Scala that could hold 2,000 worshippers or more, but continued up the rough mountain pass to where the goats and the shepherds lived.  There they stopped at a small monastery of nuns and met their other friends.  The nuns gave them shelter and they prepared themselves for the founding of the Congregation on November 9th, intentionally selecting the date of the Dedication of the Church of Rome, the great Lateran Basilica, which was also called the Church of the Holy Savior. Tuesday, November 6th, Wednesday, November 7th, and Thursday, November 8th, were spent in prayer in front of the Blessed Sacrament.  On these three successive days they were blessed with a vision in the Sacred Host of a cross that first appeared black, then changed to blood red, and then to white.  On the cross was Our Savior, Jesus Christ, with the instruments of his crucifixion by his side; the spear, sponge, and nails.  If they had any doubt about the start of this new adventure, this sign from God dismissed all fears.  The vision of our Lord in the Host led to the motto of the Redemptorists from Psalm 130: “Copiosa apud eum redemptio” (“With Him there is plentiful redemption”).   The Congregation was approved by Pope Benedict XIV on February 25, 1749.  From small beginnings, God has blessed the work and vision of St. Alphonsus.  Today we number almost 5,000 men in over 80 countries.  We are still reaching out to the poor and abandoned people of our world through parish missions, retreats, teaching moral theology, ministering in parishes, and in many other charitable works.  The message of plentiful redemption has been enhanced by lay women and men who share their gifts with us and are aptly called, Partners in Mission.  Together with the Redemptoristines, the marvelous contemplative order of nuns who share in all that we do, we look forward to future bright with promise. Every member, whether they be Partners in Mission, Redemptoristine nuns, or the religious brothers and priests of our Congregation - we all began our journey with a silent “yes” to the call of our Savior.  There is work for you, too.  Might God be leading you to a decision today?  

"The Lord appeared to him from afar, saying, “I have loved you with an everlasting love; Therefore I have drawn you with lovingkindness (hesed).” - Jeremiah 31:3

"The Lord appeared to him from afar, saying, “I have loved you with an everlasting love; Therefore I have drawn you with lovingkindness (hesed).” - Jeremiah 31:3

"The Lord appeared to him from afar, saying, “I have loved you with an everlasting love; Therefore I have drawn you with lovingkindness (hesed).” - Jeremiah 31:3

"The Lord appeared to him from afar, saying, “I have loved you with an everlasting love; Therefore I have drawn you with lovingkindness (hesed).” - Jeremiah 31:3

"The Lord appeared to him from afar, saying, “I have loved you with an everlasting love; Therefore I have drawn you with lovingkindness (hesed).” - Jeremiah 31:3

What does James 5 mean about healing? Is there any rationale for forgiving ourselves? How do I "fit in" at church now that I understand God's grace better? Might God blot my name out of the Book of Life? Shouldn't I still follow the Law to give myself structure and to be perfect and impress others?

What does James 5 mean about healing? Is there any rationale for forgiving ourselves? How do I "fit in" at church now that I understand God's grace better? Might God blot my name out of the Book of Life? Shouldn't I still follow the Law to give myself structure and to be perfect and impress others? To support this ministry financially, visit: https://www.oneplace.com/donate/1258/29

01TODAY'S SCRIPTURE:  GENESIS: 17:15-17 - And God said to Abraham, “As for Sarai your wife, you shall not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall be her name. 16 I will bless her, and moreover, I will give you a son by her. I will bless her, and she shall become nations; kings of peoples shall come from her.” 17 Then Abraham fell on his face and laughed and said to himself, “Shall a child be born to a man who is a hundred years old? Shall Sarah, who is ninety years old, bear a child?”  MENTIONED ON TODAY'S EPISODE: Get your own marriage devotionals: https://MorningMindsetMedia.com/mip  ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

How should Christians think about evolving technology? What does it look like to engage in conversations about ChatGPT or the Bing AI bot that recently tried to persuade a New York Times reporter to leave his spouse for the bot? How is society affected by apocalyptic predictions regarding overpopulation or climate change? On this episode of The Russell Moore Show, poet, author, and literary critic Adam Kirsch joins Moore to answer these questions. They talk about Kirsch's new book, The Revolt Against Humanity: Imagining a Future Without Us; Jewish and Christian views of human nature; and how to communicate across differences in worldview. They ask whether people with an antihuman mindset—in which humans are the problem—have it right. Or, perhaps, are the transhumanists—who believe we can and should transcend humanity—on to something? Might God offer a better way than either of these perspectives? Tune in for an episode that explores the possibilities for what life could look like in the coming years and ponders how God might encourage his people to live in these times. Resources mentioned in this episode include: “Bing's A.I. Chat: ‘I Want to Be Alive.'” by Kevin Roose The Revolt Against Humanity by Adam Kirsch The Precipice by Tony Ord “The Peace of Wild Things” by Wendell Berry “A Prairie Home Companion” with Garrison Keillor Click here for a trial membership at Christianity Today. “The Russell Moore Show” is a production of Christianity Today Executive Producers: Erik Petrik, Russell Moore, and Mike Cosper Host: Russell Moore Producer: Ashley Hales Associate Producers: Abby Perry and Azurae Phelps CT Administration: Christine Kolb Social Media: Kate Lucky Director of Operations for CT Media: Matt Stevens Production Assistance: coreMEDIA Audio Engineer: Kevin Duthu Coordinator: Beth Grabenkort Video Producer: John Roland Theme Song: “Dusty Delta Day” by Lennon Hutton Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

What is your take on psychology, medicine, and therapy? I'm scared I might be a lukewarm Christian. Might God one day tell me, “Depart from Me”?

What is your take on psychology, medicine, and therapy? I'm scared I might be a lukewarm Christian. Might God one day tell me, Depart from Me? To support this ministry financially, visit: https://www.oneplace.com/donate/1258/29

In this series called, The Names of Jesus, we read from the Prophet Isaiah chapter 9 and verse 6. What a powerful word to read as it includes the names, or better yet, the titles of Jesus. He is Wonderful, Counselor, The Might God, The Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Could it get any better than this? And greater still, the Prophet told us the government will be upon His shoulder. Wow! We have the greatest gospel ever to be told. He is coming again and He will set up His government here on earth. Until then, we are commanded to expand His kingdom till He comes. Would you like to know how? Take a few moments to listen to this message. This message will prepare you for His return.

We look at the name of Might God. God wants to be the strength of your heart and He is available when we ask him to help us deal with our fear.

Pastor Abby Anderson

In this episode of The Catholic Gentleman, John is joined by Jordan Watwood, friend, and director at Everything Catholic to discuss 5 incredible sacramentals of Holy Mother Church and the devotions that go along with them. We go into how beneficial they are for us in the battle against Satan and sins of the flesh, and why every man hoping to become a part of the Church Triumphant is encouraged to pick up these weapons of the Church.  We experienced some spiritual attacks in preparing this episode with a camera breaking 3 times consecutively and a monitor screen going out next, each just minutes after beginning the section. Might God's will be done through Our Lady on this Feast of The Seven Sorrows of the Blessed Virgin Mary.  Everything Catholic - Click Here 15% OFF Coupon Code: GENTLEMAN Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Reading Judges 13:1-25 (NLT) ~ Scripture reading followed by discussion. Manoah wanting the experience, and to learn how to raise his child. God has already told his people how he wants them to live and the rules for the vow of a Nazirite. Even though the people are disconnected from God's Word and His Ways, God is pressing in, working for their freedom. Isaiah 9:6, Wonderful Councilor, Might God. The way this judge, Samson, would be the beginning of the rescue. The anticipation in the stories that start with the parents who cannot have children. God answering Manoah's prayer showed God's graciousness and is a confirmation.

Might God have an unimaginable end-time plan in the works that will shock the world and the powers of the air? Perhaps there's an implausible partnership between the Two Witnesses of Revelation 11 and a tribulation church? I can't prove such a relationship will develop. But I do note that in the closing hours of this age, the Two Witnesses and a very EFFECTIVE Church will be on the earth simultaneously and perhaps in close proximity. The Bible is evident those two constituents of end-time ministry will not go unnoticed by the world or the powers of the air. Might, at some point, they be working together? That's a little considered question these days, so let's explore the possibilities!  

Is my understanding of God too large? Could He be just as small as He is big? I normally think of God as infinite and heaven as a place where countless of Christians eventually gather to sing never-ending worship choruses for billions of years in the general direction of His giganticness. My vision of eternal life sounds boring, even to me. What if God surprises me when I get to heaven? What if He is my size (or just a little bigger) and, condescending to my level, invites me to join His realm with the kindness of any other gracious host? Could this scripture, unique to Luke's gospel, actually be true? “It will be good for those servants whose master finds them watching when he comes. I tell you the truth, he will dress himself to serve, will have them recline at the table and will come and wait on them,” (Luke 12.37). Might God be as finite as He is infinite, as small as He is big, as touchable as He is vast? Would the Creator of the universe throw a private dinner party for me and some of my friends? Would He ask us to “recline at the table” and actually “wait on” us?

When things aren't going well at work, does God really care?  In today's episode we spend some time reflecting on Psalm 56 to show us that God does indeed care, and He is Mighty enough to turn our frustrations into opportunities for growth and impact. Host: Pastor John Reilly

He Shall Be Called - Part 2 - Might God, Nick Vipperman preaching

This is my response to the book "Reflections of a Cancer Patient". I found the book very encouraging and I wanted to summarize a chapter that really stuck out to me. I hope you enjoy it.

Psalm 65 This is an exceptional poem about nature, but we find this is really a poem about the God of nature.  We find woven into this great song, truth concerning the grace of God to humanity, God's mighty works and that God Himself is the source of all the good which creation affords. [...]

In this episode I sat down with Kale Courtright in Dallas, TX and Michael Marcotte in Mt. Carmel, Illinois. Kale is the pastor of spiritual formation at his church in Dallas - and is the host of the "How to Christian" Podcast.  https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/how-to-christian-podcast/id1515408031 Michael is a former youth pastor and deeply involved in his home church in Mt. Carmel, he hosts the "Not So Secret Bible" podcast.  https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/not-so-secret-bible/id1508252753   Please join us as we have a heart conversation about what God is speaking to us around this topic of our own walk and also the church in the midst of this crazy COVID season. Contact the host: GrowingFaithPodcast@gmail.com