Podcasts about mlj

Good morning church family. If you have your Bible I would ask you to go aheadand make your way to the book of 2 Timothy. Today we will be looking at 2Timothy 4: 1-5. My name is Mikey, I am a member here at GCF and have been fora few years now. My wife Brooke, and our 5 children love this church, and Ialways count it as an honor when I have the opportunity to preach.Pastor Ken did a great job last week as we worked our way through the closing ofchapter 3. And one passage that we looked at in particular was chapter 3 vs. 16-17.There was a family that joined about 3 weeks ago, and as they stood up on thestage and were sharing their faith and what they believe, brother said, we believein the sufficiency of scripture. I was in the back, I said amen! And that is reallywhat this passage gets to. All Scripture, not some scripture is from God.[2Ti 3:16-17 ESV] 16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable forteaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 thatthe man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.We rightly believe that when we armed with the word of God we haveEVERYTHING we need for God to accomplish everything he wills to do in ourlives. We really don't need anything else.The word of God is the center piece of Church. And is delivered by the man ofGod, the preacher. There is no greater calling, there is no more importantassignment, there is no greater need.2One of my heros of the faith is Dr. Martin Lloyd Jones said it this way in his book“Preachers and Preaching”, “The primary task of the church and of the Christianminister is the preaching of the word of God”.As Paul is writing this, We know he is nearing the end of his time here on earth.In fact this is likely the last writing that we have. And as I studied this passage thisweek, I gave some thought to how I might handle my final hours on earth.And I pictured myself maybe in a room, surrounded by those that I love. Perhaps aspouse, parents, or children, or even close friend perhaps would have gatheredaround. Have you ever wondered how you might feel in those moments. Whenyou don't have much time left, and there is so much that you wanted to say to yourchildren, but time will just not allow. And you realize in those moments thedifficult times that perhaps your loved ones will have to go on to face. And yourealize you will not be there to help. You will not be able share guidance or bearburdens because your time has come to an end. What would you say in those lastmoments? I think if you get this picture in your mind, then you are close to feelingexactly like Paul feels as he pens the last words to Timothy. And so what will hesay, what is his closing plea to make sure that he leaves young Timothy headed inthe right direction.Paul knows all too well the dangers that are facing the church. He himself hasbeen imprisoned and stoned. He has seen the false teachers and he knows whatthey aim to do. He has seen false converts defect from the church. And with all ofthis on his mind, his eyes fix on Timothy, what possible advice can he give?[2Ti 4:1-5 ESV] 1 I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, whois to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: 2preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, andexhort, with complete patience and teaching. 3 For the time is coming whenpeople will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they willaccumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, 4 and will turnaway from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. 5 As for you, alwaysbe sober-minded, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill yourministry.3First, I want to talk about the structure of the passage, because that helps me digestand organize the thoughts in my mind. In verse 1, Paul lays out an overarchingcharge that sets the tone of the passage. Then in verse two we have the mainimperative statement of the entire passage. What is Timothy supposed to do? He isto “preach the word”. Highlight and double underline in. That is the title of themessage, and that is Pauls main point. Preach the word.And the rest of the passage simply explains “how” Timothy is to preach the word.So there are 8 or so imperatives that come after that explain how the Pastor is topreach. And we are going to go thru these this morning. Let's look at verse 1.[2Ti 4:1-5 ESV] 1 I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who isto judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom:We see the first verb is “charge”. It's an important word and one we don't usevery often. Can you imagine if you walked around telling people they are chargedto do something for you. They would think that you are crazy. The language usedhere is a military term. In today's term an officer might say “this is an order!”.This assignment is not optional. There is no negotiation. Timothy must be all earsbecause what Paul is about to say is important.He goes on to say “in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus.” It is as if he stepsthe importance up yet another notch. Paul borrows language in this phrase from aRoman court room. In that day if you were charged with a crime you would begiven instruction of your court date, of the crime that was committed, and thissummons would say something like in the presence of the honorable judge so andso. It is as if we are being reminded of this task that Paul is about to lay out is aformal task. It is not optional. And none other than the Holy trinity itself will standand take account.Verse 1 says he is the judge of “the living and the dead”. The idea here goes backto God as the judge of all mankind.[2Co 5:10 ESV] 10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, sothat each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whethergood or evil.4Paul sets the tone for this charge as one of grave importance. This task ofpreaching for both Timothy and all men who would be called to follow after is notto be taken lightly. In fact, this judge mentioned here in verse 1 will judge thesepreachers with even greater scrutiny. This concept of preachers being judged in aspecial way is not just here take a look at James 3:1.[Jas 3:1 ESV] 1 Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for youknow that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness.One of my favorite preachers in church history is none other than Dr. MartynLloyd Jones. He was an outstanding physician in London, and even as a youngman was promoted to chief clinical assistant to the King. Sounds like prettyimportant work right?When I came here, people said to me: ‘Why give up good work – a goodprofession – after all, the medical profession, why give that up? If you had been abookie, for instance, and wanted to give that up to preach the gospel, we shouldunderstand and agree with you and say that you were doing a grand thing. Butmedicine – a good profession, healing the sick and relieving pain!' One man evensaid this, ‘If you were a lawyer and gave it up, I'd give you a pat on the back, butto give up medicine!MLJ said about this ‘if you knew more about the work of a doctor, you wouldunderstand. We but spend most of our time rendering people fit to go back to theirsin!' I saw men on their sick beds, I spoke to them of their immortal souls, theypromised grand things. Then they got better and back they went to their old sin! Isaw I was helping these men to sin and I decided that I would do no more of it. Iwant to heal souls. If a man has a diseased body and his soul is all right, he is allright to the end; but a man with a healthy body and a diseased soul is all right forsixty years or so and then he has to face an eternity of hell. Ah, yes! we havesometimes to give up those which are good for that which is the best of all – thejoy of salvation and newness of life.5MLJ had no problem leaving behind a physician for an earthly king, because heknew that call he received to be a preacher for the king of kings was far moreimportant work.So that is verse 1, it sets the stage, it provides the mood, the lighting of everythingwe are about to discuss. Verse 2.Preach the word. Underline this. We said this phrase is the main imperative of thetext. Not just for Timothy but all preachers will be judged based on how true theywere to the command. Preach the word.The Greek verb for preach here is Keruso. And it means to herald. Back in thosedays when there was an order from the King, perhaps a meeting that needed totake place in a particular village, they didn't have a website or a newspaper toshare information. There would be assigned heralds. Who would move out into thebusy parts of towns, into the markets and they would begin to shout, attentionattention, and they would pass along the information. It was a public proclamation,given to all could hear, That is the idea about what it is to preach.But Paul does not permit the preacher to herald just anything, he says preach theword. You may think that should be obvious, but let me tell you it is not. Theremay be a temptation by a pastor, perhaps even by pressure of his congregation todo so something other than preach the word. Paul speaks of the entire council ofscripture. Both the OT and the NT are included. It would be a grave error toexclude any part of the word. “All scripture is God breathed”.I want to stop here and say why I am thankful that our church teaches verse byverse through entire books of the Bible... Growing up topical. Strawman sermonson easy texts. It was rare to deal with difficult passages or work through things thepastor or congregation was struggling to comprehend. A pastor who preaches ashallow message will only develop a shallow congregation. 7 out of 10 youth willwalk away from the faith after they move out of their parents home. Could someof that be that we just won't go deep in the word. To help them understandeverything they are seeing in the world, taught in schools, through the lense of realdeep understanding.6If anything of power, of God is to happen in our church it must happen through thepower that comes from obedience to this command, Preach the word. We can getcaught up in numbers, in strategy, in surveys, and start looking at all the wrongthings. To fufill the imperative in this verse, the church must be a church that iscommitted to the power of preaching as the centerpiece. The church has the task tomake dead men come alive.So now we look at the question of how the pastor is to preach. He is to be ready inseason and out of season. This is the second command or imperative. Did youknow there is no season that is not either in season or out of season? That's all theseasons. The preacher is to always be ready to go. The verb here has a suddennessto it. It is like a soldier who has been put on alert. His bags are packed he is readyto deploy he simply stands by the phone for his orders. He is ready to go, that isthe picture here.This applies to pastors mainly, but we as the congregation can certainly apply it aswell. If our day to day life is marked by disobedience. If we are neglecting theword, if we are neglecting to spend time in prayer. If we are living in a perpetualstate of sin, then how on earth can we be ready. It's easy to get ready for a singleevent right. We can clean ourselves up and get it together for 1 maybe 2 days aweek, but Paul says the preacher is to be ready 24/7. Not an easy thing to do, butthis is the standard by which they will be judged.Okay more imperatives coming up that answer the question “How is the word tobe preached?” We will group the next 3 together because they are sort of similaror related. Still in verse 3 we have:reprove, rebuke, and exhort. This is basically 2 negatives and a positive. Firstly,lets look at reprove. We just saw reprove back in 2 Tim 3:16. It means to correctmisbehavior or to correct false doctrine. It can almost be thought of more as ahead knowledge correction. Or to helps someone think about something rightly.Next we have rebuke. It is closely related, but it deals more with the heart. Itcarries more of the idea of the heart. When the pastor rebukes he is bringing thecongregation under conviction.7This is one of the fundamental differences between teaching and preaching. If Iam teaching you an idea or a passage of scripture I'm just talking to you so thatyou understand the idea that I am trying to communicate, but if am preaching andI am rebuking you now we have the will and the heart and conviction all takingplace. It is something entirely different.Exhort. This is the positive. Parakaleo. Sometimes the Holy Spirit is referred to asParaklyte. Which is to say that he is our helper. So Exort or parakaleo is to comealong aside and lovingly encourage.With complete patience and teaching. The preacher is not to be irritable orimpatient. Even if progress is slow and painful. I think back to Jesus and hisdisciples. Things were slow. Those guys sometimes were just slow. And healways taught with patience.Phil Robertson movie, Blind. Phil was bad. Phil had already turned away thepreacher. Phil bought a bar. Preacher came in the bar. Phil throws him out and isborderline abusive to his wife and family. He ends up throwing them out. And Philhits rock bottom. Pastors be patient. Wives be patient. Husbands be patient. Ms.Kay aske the reverend to go back and talk to him one more time.Vs 3 the preacher is to preach with urgency, “For the time is coming”. Throughoutchurch history there have certainly been ebs and flows. Times of falling away, andthere have been times of great revival. But I think the overall trend as time goes onis that more and more people turn from God. Paul says to Timothy, hey it's the 2minute warning. It's time to score because time is of the essence. The time iscoming, and I believe now more than ever the time has come where:People will not endure sound teaching. Some translations use the pronoun “they”here. The ESV says people, but in either case I think we should consider whothese people are that don't endure sound teaching. At first I thought it was simplythe everybody in the world, but I don't think that is exactly right. You see peoplewho don't go to church have never endured sound teaching or doctrine. So I thinkthe people that are discussed here are what I call “church going people”. These arepeople who fill the seats and the pews of various congregations each and every8Sunday all throughout the world. By context that is the only way this really can beread I think. And when we think about the parable of the wheat and the tares weknow that these congregations, sometimes entire congregations are made of lostpeople.And so as we look around the world, as we look around the churches in the lowcountry, as we look around right here at GCF, what is it that distinguishes thosewho have been born again from those who have not. I believe it is a love and anembrace for true sound doctrine. Paul says the day is coming when they won'ttolerate the true word. Many times a false convert is easy to spot because theyhave no love for the truth of Scripture. Sound doctrine shines a magnifying glasson the wickedness of our sin.Paul says they have “itching ears”. Have you ever had someone ask for your trueopinion and the second that they realize you don't agree with them they stoplistening to you. These unconverted church goers don't want to be confronted withthe weight of a Holy God and a wicked sinner. So with itching ears they seek outsomeone to tell them exactly what they want to hear.The text says they “accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their ownpassions”. I don't know if there has ever been a more obvious time where this hasplayed out in front of us. There is a welcoming congregation for every lifestyle ofsin.And the pulpits are filled with people who not only won'tt mention the sin, butthey will contort scripture and tell you that it is not sin at all.Sin of greed. My pastor never preaches about money because he just says he letsGod deal with that.Self-help and prosperity focused churches are filled with people who want nothingto do with sermons that rebuke and reprove.I remember I was flipping through the channels and I ran across a Pastor who waspreaching to a church that was literally meeting in a football stadium, and it wasfull. I was shocked as I heard the sermon. The Bible was not even required forwhat the man was saying. And I remember thinking how can thousands and9thousands of people sit here with a Bible in there hand and not realize that this isnot the gospel?You know why... I know now. Paul just told me. The day is coming when theywon't tolerate sound doctrine but they will accumulate ear tickling preachers. Hereyou have 10s of thousands of people having their ears tickle, and it is exactly whatthey want to hear.For preachers, it's not easy to say the hard things. For true believers that sit heretoday, don't fall into this trap where you avoid the hard work of searching yourheart for sin. This is why we are here.4 and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. Theverb here that is translated “turn away” has a medical connotation of a dislocatedjoint. It is as a person turns away so quickly that they snap their neck out of joint.These folks are so turned off by sound doctrine or sound teaching that they snaptheir necks to turn away from it.These false converts then wander off into myths. I think there is principle that isbeing taught in verse 4 that if you don't fill your mind with sound doctrine, yourmind will be increasingly susceptible to believe a lie. (garden of eden example) Bynot filling yourself with sound doctrine, or preachers without preaching sounddoctrine create in the congregation a vulnerability to deception.5 As for you, always be sober-minded, endure suffering, do the work of anevangelist, fulfill your ministry.Finally Paul says to be sober minded. This is to be level headed.Endure suffering. It is not a question of if suffering will occur. Faithful preacherswho preach the word become a lightning rod for suffering. Paul knows sufferingvery well and even as he writes these words his suffering continues. It is areminder to those who do the work of ministry, not just preachers, but especiallythose who preach, ministry comes at a cost.10Do the work of an evangelist. This is the 8th imperative. It is the call to the preacherthat he must share the gospel of salvation. Its interesting that Paul doesn't call himto be an evangelist, but to do the work of an evangelist. It is as if he wants him toremember, in everything you do as a preacher, you must also in that do the workthat evangelist would do.Simply put, the pastor is to help people come to terms with their sinfulness. Tounderstand that they are separated from God. To call all who have ears to hear thatthe time is now to repent and to trust in Christ for salvation.Fulfil your ministry. Do everything God has stored up for you, every good work tothe fullness of your ability.This text of course is primarily for preachers, but we as the congretation have arole to fill as well. We must participate in the process of sanctification.Let's pray.

Hello!**N.B. Our main giving page is here. We especially need help with a new filming project that is arguably the most important project we will ever produce. We need financial backing for venue-hire and the expertise from film-makers/editors.**Thank you for listening to Into the Pray, a podcast akin to a growing library of voice-notes helping disciples of Christ around the world to breach the global chaos of the unfaithful Church...because Christ is coming and we are not ready. This week I read out an excerpt of an address of Martin Lloyd-Jones to his own church during an annual day away as a church family in 1963. Encouragingly for us, the crux of what Lloyd-Jones was saying 61 years ago in 1963 is the same embryonic train of thought as the things I have written in The Glorious Few in 2023, (60 years hence).“If I am right in my diagnosis, the position is moving very rapidly and unless we do something, it may be too late; or we may be so overwhelmed in disaster that it will only be out of a terrible wreckage that we may gradually crawl out into a new position. I say the alternative is to recognise that it is time for us to act, to clarify our own minds.”— MLJ (1963)Please subscribe to our YouTube channel here. See info on our new film series here and here. Maranatha?MARANATHA!Love, Nick & MairiOur flagship content:

Comment She-Hulk a-t-elle définitivement modifié la perception de la réalité dans l'univers Marvel à cause d'une publicité pour un parfum qui n'a jamais existé ? Aujourd'hui, je m'intéresse à une histoire que vous pensez sûrement connaître, mais qui vous réserve encore bien des surprises ! GIRLS GONE GREEN  Nous sommes en 1979, et la série télévisée L'Incroyable Hulk, avec Lou Ferrigno et Bill Bixby, cartonne sur le petit écran. Le producteur Kenneth Johnson ; déjà derrière le spin-off de L'Homme qui valait Trois Milliards, Super Jaimie ; et Stan Lee, que l'on ne présente plus, ont alors la même idée : offrir à L'Incroyable Hulk une série dérivée mettant en scène un personnage féminin. Voulant assurer les arrières de Marvel Comics en matière de propriété intellectuelle, Stan Lee prend les devants et demande au dessinateur John Buscema de l'aider à créer une version féminine de Hulk. C'est ainsi que Jennifer Walters apparaît en novembre 1979 dans le premier numéro de The Savage She-Hulk. Bruce Banner, alias Hulk, fugitif traqué par toutes les polices, débarque à Los Angeles pour retrouver sa cousine Jennifer, devenue avocate, dans l'espoir d'obtenir son aide. Après lui avoir raconté comment il a été irradié par sa propre création, la bombe gamma, qui a fait de lui un monstre incontrôlable, Banner apprend que sa cousine défend un voyou mêlé malgré lui aux malversations du caïd Nicholas Trask. Or, ce fameux Trask compte bien faire taire la jeune avocate, et envoie ses hommes de main pour l'assassiner. Grièvement blessée par balle, Jennifer ne doit son salut qu'à une transfusion sanguine de fortune effectuée par son cousin Bruce, avec son propre sang radioactif. Ainsi, quand Trask envoie de nouveau ses larbins pour définitivement éliminer Jennifer en convalescence à l'hôpital, ces derniers ont la mauvaise surprise de la voir se transformer en géante musculeuse à la peau verte ! She-Hulk est née ! Désormais dotée d'une force colossale et d'une résistance à toute épreuve quand elle se transforme, tout en étant beaucoup moins bestiale que son cousin, Jennifer va prendre goût à cette nouvelle condition, si bien qu'elle restera sous sa forme de She-Hulk la majeure partie du temps. Utilisant ses pouvoirs pour combattre l'injustice et venir en aide aux plus faibles, elle va, sous la plume de David Anthony Kraft et le crayon Mike Vosburg, enchaîner les aventures super-héroïques, mais aussi sentimentales. Annulée après seulement vingt-cinq numéros, The Savage-Shulk est une série largement mésestimée, principalement en ce qui concerne le travail du scénariste David Anthony Kraft, qui adopte rapidement un ton très moderne dans le traitement de l'héroïne, en faisant un personnage qui assume sans complexe son statut hors-normes et ne manquant pas d'aplomb quand il s'agit d'imposer ses choix. De ce fait, bien que rarement cité, The Savage She-Hulk mérite que vous y jetiez un œil, car ce comic book a plutôt bien vieilli. C'est d'ailleurs au cours de ses premières tribulations que Jennifer Walters rencontre Ben Grimm, alias La Chose, des Fantastic Four, donnant naissance à une amitié qui mènera notre géante de jade à rejoindre l'équipe de Reed Richards en remplacement de Grimm après les événements du crossover Secret Wars en 1984. Et si l'hypothétique spin-off télévisé ne verra finalement jamais le jour, She-Hulk va faire son petit bonhomme de chemin dans l'univers Marvel, rejoignant notamment les Avengers et croisant régulièrement la route de son cousin Bruce. YOU'RE KIDDING, RIGHT ? Malgré cela, She-Hulk conserve pour beaucoup de lecteurs l'image d'une énième version féminine d'un héros masculin, comme Ms Marvel et Spider-Woman chez Marvel, ou Supergirl chez DC Comics. Mais tout cela va radicalement changer grâce à un artiste : John Byrne. Figure incontournable de la bande dessinée américaine, ayant œuvré sur les X-Men ou Alpha Flight chez Marvel, sur Superman et Wonder Woman chez DC, et à l'origine de créations originales comme les Next Men chez Dark Horse, John Byrne a littéralement transformé de nombreuses icônes des comics dans les années 1980 et 1990. Visionnaire, son travail est empreint de thématiques sociales, politiques et technologiques, précédant parfois de plusieurs années les tendances, sans oublier d'adjoindre un regard critique qui invite le lecteur à la réflexion. Aux commandes de la série Fantastic Four de 1981 à 1986, Byrne va y mettre en scène She-Hulk, et également lui consacrer un graphic novel en 1985, avant de prendre en main la série The Sensational She-Hulk à partir de 1989. Dès la couverture du premier numéro, Byrne annonce la couleur. Jennifer Walters s'y adresse directement au lecteur, menaçant de déchirer leur collection de comics X-Men s'ils n'achètent pas sa série. Le ton est donné : She-Hulk est devenu un personnage conscient de sa condition d'héroïne de comic book et elle va dorénavant régulièrement briser le quatrième mur. Le quatrième mur est une notion venant du théâtre, selon laquelle il existe un mur invisible séparant la fiction jouée sur scène et le public. Notamment théorisée par Denis Diderot en 1758 dans Le Discours sur la Poésie Dramatique, elle a ensuite été développée par de nombreux auteurs, principalement dans le théâtre réaliste, admettant qu'il est également possible aux personnages d'une pièce de passer outre ce quatrième mur pour s'adresser directement au spectateur, pour un aparté qui renforce l'aspect comique ou dramatique de la situation, par exemple. La notion de quatrième mur s'est ensuite élargie à d'autres supports, du cinéma au jeu vidéo en passant par la bande dessinée. L'un des premiers exemples concrets au cinéma est le film muet The Great Train Robbery, réalisé en 1903 par l'Américain Edwin S. Porter, se terminant par un plan extrêmement avant-gardiste dans lequel on peut voir un homme tirer en direction du public. Une scène qui a fait sensation lors des projections, effrayant même quelques spectateurs ! Parmi les nombreux personnages de film ou de série capables de briser ce quatrième mur, on pourra citer Néo dans Matrix ; Ferris Bueller, qui a ensuite inspiré la série télévisée Parker Lewis ne perd jamais ; mais aussi les Animaniacs ou encore Malcolm. Du côté des comics, on retrouve cette faculté à différents niveaux chez Howard the Duck, Deadpool, ou Animal Man. Bien entendu, l'objectif principal est de produire un effet sur le spectateur, généralement pour préciser un contexte, renforcer l'immersion, ou bien tout simplement pour le faire rire. Cette notion acquise d'être un personnage capable de passer outre le quatrième mur va permettre à peu près tout et n'importe quoi à Jennifer Walter au cours des soixante épisodes que compte The Sensational She-Hulk : interpeller les lecteurs, sauter de case en case et traverser les pages de publicités, menacer John Byrne lorsque les choix artistiques de ce dernier lui semblent mauvais pour les ventes de la série, et même assister au démontage du décor dans le tout dernier numéro, dont la couverture fait d'ailleurs écho à celle du premier. Un répertoire de gimmicks astucieux qui trouvent pour beaucoup leur source dans une rencontre que Jennifer va faire dans le quatrième numéro de The Sensational She-Hulk. GOLDEN AGE GUEST STAR  Si les débuts de la série jouent gentiment avec le quatrième mur ; comme lorsque She-Hulk reproche à Byrne de lui faire affronter les Toad Men, référence méta au deuxième numéro de The Incredible Hulk paru en 1962 dont elle se moquait en couverture ; le quatrième épisode place un nouveau personnage inattendu sur la route de notre héroïne : Louise Grant Mason. Louise explique à Jennifer que dans les années 1940, elle était Blonde Phantom, une justicière costumée combattant le crime. Blonde Phantom est un vrai personnage de bande dessinée, dont les aventures ont été publiées par Timely Comics, l'ancêtre de Marvel, à partir de 1946. Créée par le scénariste Al Sulman et par le dessinateur Syd Shores à la demande de Stan Lee qui trouvait que les publications Timely manquaient de super-héroïnes, elle fait sa première apparition dans All Select Comics #11, un périodique qui sera d'ailleurs renommé Blonde Phantom dès le numéro suivant. Secrétaire du détective Mark Mason, Louise Grant revêt un loup et une robe de soirée rouge du meilleur effet pour devenir la justicière Blonde Phantom et ainsi aider son patron à résoudre les affaires les plus corsées. Bien que dépourvue de super-pouvoirs, elle combat tour à tour d'anciens nazis, un inventeur monté sur des chaussures à ressorts, un savant fou venu du futur, et même son sosie remodelé par un chirurgienne peu scrupuleuse ! Alors qu'elle en pince pour Mark, Louise est totalement invisible aux yeux de ce dernier qui, ignorant la double identité de son employée, lui préfère Blonde Phantom. Une romance largement inspirée de la relation entre Loïs Lane et Clark Kent, pour ne citer que l'exemple le plus célèbre, et qui aura tendance à largement minimiser le rôle de Louise, systématiquement ramenée à sa condition d'assistante dans un monde gouverné par les hommes. Le personnage va rencontrer un certain succès, s'exportant dans les pages de Marvel Mystery Comics aux côtés de Captain America, Namor ou de la première Torche Humaine, mais aussi dans les comic books mettant en scène d'autres super-héroïnes du Golden Age, comme Sun Girl ou Namora. Et, sans trop s'avancer, on peut affirmer que Blonde Phantom est un personnage plutôt populaire chez Timely Comics à l'époque. La série Blonde Phantom va durer jusqu'au vingt-deuxième numéro, en 1949, avant que la publication ne soit finalement renommée Lovers, manifestation de la fin de l'âge d'or des super-héros costumés, peu à peu remplacés par des genres comme la Romance, le Western ou l'Horreur après la fin de la Seconde Guerre mondiale. Il faut donc finalement attendre 1989 pour revoir Louise Grant dans le quatrième numéro de The Sensational She-Hulk. Elle y apparaît plus âgée, et surtout, on apprend qu'elle s'est mariée avec Mark Mason en 1949, juste après l'arrêt de la publication de sa série, adoptant ainsi officiellement le nom de Louise Grant Mason. En discutant avec elle, Jennifer comprend qu'au fil du temps, Louise est devenue pleinement consciente d'être un personnage de bande dessinée et qu'elle est persuadée que si elle ne ressemble plus à la Blonde Phantom des années 1940, c'est parce que sa série a été annulée par l'éditeur. Oubliés du public, elle et Mark se sont alors mis à vieillir, jusqu'au moment où le décès de son mari l'a poussée à retrouver un emploi pour devenir un personnage secondaire de la série She-Hulk, et ainsi échapper au même destin funeste. On ne s'en rend pas forcément compte au premier abord, mais la théorie de Louise ; et donc, par extension, de John Byrne ; répond de façon assez brillante à la question récurrente du non-vieillissement des personnages de comics. Pour elle, les personnages ne vieillissent pas tant qu'ils apparaissent dans les comics, et cette explication très méta n'est finalement pas plus farfelue que celles qui se baseraient sur des temporalités plus ou moins compressées. Mais elle ouvre aussi la porte à une quantité infinie de mindfuck, car étant donné que Louise pense cela parce qu'elle a conscience d'être elle-même un personnage de comics, elle est peut-être finalement responsable de son propre vieillissement. Ça en devient vertigineux. SMELL LIKE BLONDE PHANTOM Mais notre histoire ne s'arrête pas là. Car Blonde Phantom elle-même possède une origine pour le moins étrange. En effet, si la super-héroïne apparaît bel et bien pour la première fois dans All Select Comics #11, un autre personnage a porté le même pseudonyme quelques semaines plus tôt dans un contexte totalement différent. Créée par Ruth Atkinson pour Timely Comics en 1945, Millicent Collins, alias Millie the Model, est un jeune mannequin dont les aventures, entre romance et humour, vont connaître une longévité assez exceptionnelle. Fruit des demandes de l'éditeur Martin Goodman, qui cherchait à surfer sur le succès des séries dérivées de l'univers de Archie publiées par son concurrent MLJ, Millie the Model va occuper les présentoirs des kiosques américains jusqu'en 1973, et va même connaître plusieurs spin-offs. Dans l'une des courtes histoires présentes au sommaire du deuxième numéro, paru en juillet 1946, Millie se voit confier la mission de poser pour une publicité vantant le mérite d'un tout nouveau parfum : le Blonde Phantom. Elle qui ne rêve que de gloire et de paillettes est alors totalement anonymisée derrière un masque et une robe noire à pois rouges, ne pouvant pas profiter des retombées du succès du fameux sent-bon pour faire décoller sa carrière ! Vous l'aurez compris, exception faite du cadre et des enjeux, cette Blonde Phantom ressemble drôlement à celle qui prendra conscience de son statut de personnage de comics quelques décennies plus tard. Qu'une justicière costumée apparue seulement à deux mois d'intervalle chez le même éditeur porte exactement le même nom et un costume vaguement ressemblant pourrait très bien être une amusante coïncidence, tout comme le fait que Millie et Louise partagent pas mal de points communs, dont celui d'être ignorées par un love interest qui est aussi leur supérieur hiérarchique. Mais les similitudes ne semblent plus si fortuites quand l'on découvre que Al Sulman, le co-créateur de la super-héroïne Louise Grant, relisait régulièrement de nombreux scripts pour Timely. Tandis que Ken Bald, dessinateur sur Millie the Model, comptait parmi les artistes au sommaire du numéro de All Select Comics où apparaît pour la première fois Blonde Phantom, cette fois au dessin des aventures de Miss America. Si l'on ne peut définitivement rien affirmer, on peut au moins supposer que l'idée d'une redresseuse de torts en tenue de gala traînait depuis quelque temps dans les cartons des équipes créatives de Timely Comics, et que la demande de Stan Lee a été l'opportunité de lui donner vie pour de bon. Une vie qui fut longue et bien remplie pour Louise Grant Mason, principalement parce que son retour dans les pages de She-Hulk va inspirer d'autres artistes. Car, comble du méta à la sauce Byrne : en sortant de sa retraite pour ne pas mourir oubliée du lectorat, Blonde Phantom est devenue elle-même responsable du renouveau de son statut au sein de l'univers Marvel et de l'enrichissement a posteriori de son background et de son passé de justicière. Steve Gerber et Buzz Dixon, remplaçant au pied levé John Byrne éjecté de The Sensational She-Hulk par un Tom DeFalco irascible, donneront à Louise une héritière costumée en la personne de sa fille Wanda, qui deviendra l'héroïne Phantom Blonde. Et la magie de la rétro-continuité lui permettra même de vivre des aventures à rebours, comme dans la mini-série Avengers 1959 de Howard Chaykin, parue en 2011. John Byrne reviendra finalement sur The Sensational She-Hulk, continuant de jouer avec les codes du comic book, comme le faisait Grant Morrison avec sa Doom Patrol à la même période, et livrant par la même occasion des couvertures désopilantes se rangeant parmi les meilleures de l'histoire de la bande dessinée américaine. Une bonne partie d'entre elles joue sur l'hypersexualisation de Jennifer qui, consciente de l'exploitation de son image par l'artiste, s'en plaint régulièrement. Une façon provocatrice de dénoncer ce phénomène particulièrement en vogue à partir des années 1980 et toutes les dérives autour du culte du corps qui l'accompagnent. Mais ceci est une tout autre histoire dont on reparlera peut-être une prochaine fois ! Personnage atypique dont le ton comique et introspectif est parfois mal compris, comptant parmi les dernières co-création de Stan Lee pour la Maison des Idées, imaginée avant tout à des fins mercantiles pour protéger les intérêts d'un éditeur dans une effervescence télévisuelle inachevée, puis redéfinie par un artiste précurseur qui a été jusqu'à donner un sens aux lois innées d'un genre, She-Hulk est un cas unique dans l'univers Marvel. Si les productions suivantes, comme les séries écrites par Dan Slott ou Charles Soule, ont souvent cherché à prolonger l'exercice initié par Byrne, le vent de fraîcheur apporté par The Sensational She-Hulk reste particulièrement osé et novateur de par ses possibles répercussions à grande échelle. Et quel que soit votre rapport à She-Hulk, le parcours de Jennifer Walters chez Marvel est à tout jamais le fruit d'un jeu d'influences au doux parfum d'imaginaire, auquel je vous recommande de jeter un œil ! N'hésitez pas à partager cet article sur les réseaux sociaux s'il vous a plu ! Recevez mes articles, podcasts et vidéos directement dans votre boîte mail, sans intermédiaire ni publicité, en vous abonnant gratuitement ! Retrouvez le podcast POP CULTURE & COMICS sur toutes les plateformes d'écoute en cliquant ici ! Get full access to CHRIS - POP CULTURE & COMICS at chrisstup.substack.com/subscribe

Texas Techs Jumps and Multi's Coach, Keith Herston, is quickly becoming one of the worlds top jumps coaches having had success with various national and international athletes across different event disciplines. Keith has coached , 3 Olympians, 4 World Championship Finalists, 1 NCAA Champion, 63 NCAA All Americans , and 6 Top-10 NCAA All-Time Performers (WTJ, WLJ, MLJ).Affiliated w/Output Sport - get 10% off by using the promocode, 'COLMBOURKE10'Support the show

Aujourd'hui, on va se pencher sur un pan tout à fait particulier de la bande dessinée américaine, à la fois politique, polémique et exotique : l'étrange habitude des auteurs de comics qui consiste à utiliser Adolf Hitler dans leurs histoires… Évidemment, au cas où vous en douteriez, il ne sera pas question de faire ici l'apologie d'un dictateur responsable de la mort de millions de personnes, ni du nazisme ou de l'intolérance sous toutes ses formes, mais bien de parler de comics. Pour recontextualiser un peu, Adolf Hitler est un dictateur ayant pris le pouvoir en Allemagne en 1933. Figure centrale de l'idéologie nazie, il instaure dans son pays un régime fasciste, raciste, homophobe et antisémite, avant de mener une campagne militaire à visée expansionniste dans une bonne partie de l'Europe, à l'origine de la Seconde Guerre Mondiale. Responsable de l'extermination de dizaines de millions de personnes, le Troisième Reich dirigé par Hitler sera l'un des régimes les plus meurtriers et liberticides du XXe siècle, avant d'être définitivement renversé par les alliés en 1945.Évidemment, je vous la fais courte, premièrement car je ne suis pas prof d'histoire, et deuxièmement parce que j'ose croire que chacun et chacune d'entre vous est au courant des crimes atroces commis par l'Allemagne nazie et ses sympathisants. Mais il est quand même important de comprendre que pendant plusieurs années, Adolf Hitler, les nazis, et le Troisième Reich ont été une menace pour une grande partie des nations partout à travers le monde, y compris les États-Unis. Et cette époque coïncide justement avec l'explosion d'un genre à part entière au pays de l'Oncle Sam : le comic book de super-héros. Quand Superman apparaît pour la première fois dans le numéro 1 de Action Comics, en 1938, le monde n'est pas encore en guerre, mais la situation en Europe est déjà bien assez préoccupante pour que l'air du temps inspire les artistes de comics. Le monde a besoin de héros pour affronter des menaces toujours plus grandes, et l'invasion de la Pologne en 1939 va offrir des adversaires de choix aux super-héros américains qui se multiplient à vue d'œil. Rapidement, le régime nazi, ses soldats, et surtout ses espions, se révèlent être de parfaits antagonistes pour les histoires de justiciers costumés. Dès octobre 1939, le deuxième numéro de Marvel Mystery Comics nous raconte comment The Angel a sauvé la population polonaise des bombardements allemands. Puis en juin 1940, Adolf Hitler apparaît en personne, sans toutefois être nommé, dans la toute première, mais aussi l'unique aventure de Marvel Boy, créé par le duo formé par Joe Simon et Jack Kirby. Le début d'une très longue liste d'apparitions dans les pages de nos comic books préférés. Je vous le dis tout de suite : il me sera impossible d'être exhaustif, car Adolf Hitler apparaît littéralement dans plusieurs centaines de comic books, parfois le temps d'une case, parfois en tant qu'antagoniste principal, et ce qui est sûr, c'est qu'aucun autre personnage historique ne possède une carrière comparable dans la bande dessinée américaine, encore plus quand on se souvient que l'on parle quand même d'un dictateur génocidaire. La parution de Captain America Comics #1, en décembre 1940, a marqué l'histoire et les lecteurs en montrant sur sa couverture la sentinelle de la liberté en train de mettre une bonne grosse droite au Führer. Héros patriotique par excellence, inspiré par le succès de The Shield, un personnage de l'éditeur MLJ apparu quelques mois plus tôt, Captain America incarne le tournant pris par les États-Unis durant l'année 1941, alors que le pays prépare son entrée en guerre qui semble désormais inévitable. Ce tournant est particulièrement visible dans les comic books : une bonne partie des super-héros du Golden Age vont traverser l'Atlantique pour combattre les soldats allemands, et parfois Hitler en personne. C'est le cas du Captain Marvel de Fawcett, de Namor the Sub-Mariner, de Superman, de The Flash, de Blue Beetle, du premier Human Torch, mais aussi de Black Terror, ou encore du premier Daredevil publié par Lev Gleason. En parallèle, des magazines réunissant plusieurs super-héros, comme Young Allies, All Winners ou Master Comics, multiplient les interventions de leurs personnages sur le vieux continent pour tenir tête aux nazis dans des aventures qui verront naître quelques super-vilains aussi saugrenus que dans l'air du temps, comme Captain Nazi, et tout cela avant même que les États-Unis ne prennent part au conflit mondial pour de bon, en décembre 1941. Hitler et ses soldats seront aussi moqués et parodiés dans une quantité non-négligeable de titres humoristiques, ou ridiculisés par les alliés dans des titres publiant des histoires de guerre, alors qu'au même moment, certains artistes sont mobilisés en Europe pour affronter les nazis, dans des combats bien réels, cette fois. Si ces publications peuvent sembler naïves, elles sont pourtant  l'expression d'une tendance propagandiste absolument assumée par la bande dessinée américaine de l'époque, encourageant les lecteurs en âge de s'engager à aller combattre les nazis, et ceux qui ne peuvent le faire à soutenir l'effort de guerre, notamment en achetant des “war bonds”, équivalent des obligations de guerre en France, pour financer la campagne militaire contre les forces de l'Axe. Après la mort de Hitler et la victoire des Alliés en 1945, une page se tourne pour nos super-héros préférés. Si pendant la Seconde Guerre Mondiale, le marché des comics était à son apogée, tout comme le genre super-héroïque, et que Adolf Hitler représentait de toute évidence le grand méchant idéal, ne pouvant être surpassé par une autre menace réelle ou fictive, l'après-guerre s'avère bien plus complexe. Le genre peine à se renouveler, le public se tourne vers d'autres types de récits de romance, de western, d'horreur ou de science-fiction. Plus légères, moins terre-à-terre, ces histoires tranchent de façon nette et définitive avec la propagande militariste de la première moitié du Golden Age et invitent à l'évasion, loin des champs de bataille. Oh, bien sûr, les super-héros ne disparaissent pas pour autant. Une poignée d'entre eux subsiste, mais ils rencontrent quelques difficultés quand il s'agit de trouver un adversaire à leur taille. Une aspiration qui mènera généralement les justiciers et justicières costumées sur le terrain de la science-fiction, et même parfois de l'épouvante. Durant cette période, les auteurs ont tendance à restreindre l'aspect politique des super-héros, tout du moins au premier degré, mais quelques exceptions confirment la règle, comme Captain America qui, en bon patriote, affronte le temps de quelques numéros des espions communistes dans des aventures inspirées par la chasse aux rouges encouragée par le Maccarthysme. Des histoires revues et corrigées par Marvel depuis, qui nourriront quelques arcs narratifs autour des individus ayant remplacé Steve Rogers durant son séjour dans la glace… En parlant de réécrire l'histoire, c'est à partir des années 1960 que l'utilisation d'Adolf Hitler dans les comics devient aussi intéressante qu'inattendue. Le dictateur est mort, sa dépouille a été détruite par les Soviétiques, mais son fantôme va faire les belles heures de la bande dessinée américaine.  Parmi les premières séries du Silver Age à utiliser de façon notable et régulière le personnage de Hitler, on peut mentionner Sergeant Fury and his Howling Commandos chez Marvel, dont le premier numéro paraît en 1963, et dans laquelle l'équipe d'élite de Nick Fury combat les nazis en Europe durant la Deuxième Guerre Mondiale. Sans en avoir l'air, les aventures du Sergent Fury et de ses hommes vont développer un riche background à l'univers Marvel, en donnant un passé de nazi à certains super-vilains que les Fantastic Four ou les Avengers affrontent en parallèle dans leurs propres séries. Car c'est toujours en 1963 que Hitler refait surface chez Marvel, et cette fois-ci dans une histoire de super-héros se déroulant à l'époque contemporaine de sa parution, dans Fantastic Four #21. On y découvre le personnage du Hate Monger, étrange individu encapuchonné haïssant les étrangers, et doté d'un rayon de haine lui permettant de transformer n'importe qui en forcené. À la fin de l'épisode, on apprend avec stupeur que ce fameux Hate Monger n'est autre que… Adolf Hitler ! Même si le mystère demeure, dans un premier temps, quant à l'authenticité de l'identité de ce super-vilain, on découvrira ensuite que le Hate Monger est en fait le fruit du travail du scientifique nazi Arnim Zola, qui est parvenu a transférer la conscience du dictateur dans le corps d'un clone juste avant sa mort. Une saga qui s'étend sur plusieurs années, puisque les détails du procédé ne seront révélés qu'en 1980, dans Super-Villain Team-Up #17 ! L'autre série Marvel qui réécrit l'histoire, c'est The Invaders, publiée à partir de 1975 et s'étalant sur quarante-et-un numéros dans sa première mouture. Équipe formée par Captain America, Bucky, Namor le Prince des Mers, l'androïde Jim Hammond, alias Human Torch, et son sidekick Toro, les Invaders revisitent les combats menés par les super-héros du Golden Age durant la Deuxième Guerre Mondiale. Affrontant également Hitler et divers super-nazis, tels que Master Man, les Invaders sont à l'origine de plusieurs retcons, des corrections de la continuité de l'univers de façon rétroactive, chez Marvel. On y verra par exemple le Führer invoquer Thor, le dieu du Tonnerre, pour combattre Captain America et ses coéquipiers, à une époque où ce dernier n'était pas encore devenu l'alter ego de Donald Blake. Dans What If ? #4, paru en 1977, l'un des rares What If ? considérés comme canoniques, on apprend par exemple que c'est le premier Human Torch en personne qui aurait tué Adolf Hitler dans son bunker avant qu'il n'ait le temps de se suicider. Une révélation qui pourrait se raccrocher aux propos passés de Jim Hammond, lors de son retour dans le vingt-quatrième numéro de Young Men, en 1953. Vous l'aurez compris, dans les comics, le puzzle formé par l'alliance de l'histoire et de la fiction est parfois très complexe. Bien que les séries de guerre ne soient plus franchement le genre dominant durant l'Âge d'Argent et l'Âge de Bronze de la BD américaine, on pourra aussi noter des apparitions du Führer dans plusieurs numéros de G.I. Combat et de Weird War Tales, chez DC Comics, durant les années 70 et 80. Le cinquante-huitième numéro de Weird War Tales, série mêlant très efficacement guerre et horreur avec des histoires à chute dans la tradition de EC Comics, nous raconte par exemple comment Hitler a en fait échappé à la mort en 1945 pour se réveiller un millénaire plus tard. Dans le numéro 89, c'est à une armée de primates conditionnés par les nazis que le lecteur doit faire face, tandis que dans le numéro 108, un camp de prisonniers tenu par les nazis est la cible d'un commando constitué d'un vampire, d'un loup-garou et du monstre de Frankenstein ! Tout un programme, qui sera recyclé bien plus tard par DC lors de l'événement Flashpoint, avec la mini-série Frankenstein and the Creatures of the Unknown. Toujours chez DC Comics, le All-Star Squadron, qui compte dans ses rangs des héros comme Hawkman, Hawkgirl, le premier Atom, Johnny Quick ou encore Liberty Belle, va, au cours des soixante-sept épisodes parus entre 1981 et 1987, croiser à plusieurs reprises la route d'Adolf Hitler. Cette série sans doute inspirée du concept des Invaders chez Marvel, mais dans la longue tradition super-héroïque de DC Comics héritée du Golden Age, est une assez bonne démonstration de la façon dont la bande dessinée américaine va, d'une façon tout à fait méta qui lui est propre, réécrire à la fois sa propre histoire et l'histoire de la Seconde Guerre Mondiale dans le but de fournir un divertissement super-héroïque aussi efficace que détaché de toute forme de réalisme. À la même période, mais avec une approche pratiquement opposée, l'éditeur publie les aventures beaucoup plus dramatiques du Unknown Soldier, anonyme défiguré durant la guerre du Pacifique usant de ses talents en déguisement pour infiltrer les lignes ennemies. Dans le deux-cent-soixante-huitième et dernier numéro de sa série, le personnage ira jusqu'à s'introduire dans le bunker secret d'Hitler pour éliminer le despote et prendre sa place pour induire l'armée allemande en erreur aux dernières heures de la bataille de Berlin. Comme chez Marvel avec Human Torch, les super-héros américains s'attribuent ici le rôle de sauveurs absolus qui, plus qu'ayant contribué à la victoire des Alliés, ont carrément été débusquer le leader nazi jusque dans son repère pour le tuer de leurs mains ! Tout un symbole, mais aussi une vision très autocentrée du rôle des États-Unis dans le conflit. Comme je le disais, il m'est impossible d'être exhaustif, Adolf Hitler apparaissant dans une quantité astronomique de comic books, des années 1940 à nos jours. On le retrouve dans Hellboy, dans Savage Dragon, dans l'excellente série Über, mais aussi de façon plus surprenante sur la route des Tortues Ninja, et même le temps de deux épisodes complètement lunaires de la série Turok de Valiant Comics. Je vous épargne la lecture de la série éponyme en six numéros parue chez Elvifrance en 1978, “Hitler”, qui s'inspire des théories autour de la survie du tyran après la fin de la Deuxième Guerre Mondiale, sans prendre aucune précaution vis-à-vis des faits historiquement prouvés. Mais je vous recommande de jeter un œil au O.M.A.C. de John Byrne chez DC Comics, brillante mini-série de 4 numéros parue en 1991, dans laquelle le héros carbonise littéralement Hitler. Alors, est-il finalement possible de considérer Hitler comme un personnage de comics à part entière ? Difficile de le nier tant son rôle compte pour certains éditeurs. Le Baron Zemo, HYDRA, et bien évidemment le terrible Crâne Rouge sont autant de figures liées de près ou de loin à l'existence d'Adolf Hitler et des nazis dans l'univers Marvel. Tout ça soulève d'ailleurs plusieurs problématiques assez intéressantes : par exemple, est-il moralement acceptable de se promener dans la rue avec un t-shirt aux couleurs de l'organisation HYDRA ? Est-ce une bonne idée d'acheter une figurine de Red Skull à ses gosses ? Le divertissement a-t-il pris le pas sur le contexte et l'idéologie de ces personnages ? Adolf Hitler a, qu'on le veuille ou non, un statut unique. Il est incontestablement l'un des pires criminels de l'histoire moderne, si ce n'est l'incarnation du mal absolu pour plusieurs générations d'auteurs, de dessinateurs et de lecteurs partout à travers le monde. De ce fait, son utilisation dans la fiction ne possède pour ainsi dire aucun élément de comparaison valable et peut avant tout être vue comme une façon d'exorciser la douleur et la peine causées par ses agissements. En montrant Hitler frappé, ridiculisé et mis au tapis par un coup de poing bien placé donné par l'un de nos héros préférés ou l'une de nos héroïnes favorites, les artistes de comics dédramatisent à leur façon en reforgeant l'histoire de la Seconde Guerre Mondiale sous un jour moins sombre, tout en transmettant les valeurs de tolérance et de justice chères au genre super-héroïque. On peut aussi déceler dans tous ces récits de fictions l'expression d'une forme de crainte du retour du fascisme et des extrêmes sur le devant de la scène politique, et ça dès les années 1960, alors que certaines catégories sociales jusqu'alors réduites au silence parviennent enfin, et non sans mal, à avoir voix au chapitre. De toute évidence, aussi triste que cela puisse être, la libération de la parole de gens opprimés pour leur orientation sexuelle, leur religion ou leur couleur de peau, appelle généralement à des réactions toujours plus spectaculaires de la part de ceux qui cultivent l'intolérance et font en sorte que les discriminations systémiques persistent. Pour moi, c'est une partie de ce qui est symbolisé par le retour de Hitler dans la bande dessinée américaine du Silver Age. Quand, en 1963, le Hate Monger utilise son rayon pour pervertir la population, puis révèle son vrai visage une fois démasqué, celui de la haine débridée incarnée, on peut y voir la métaphore des défenseurs du ségrégationnisme qui militent pour le maintien d'une différence de traitement entre blancs et noirs à l'époque dans le pays. Quand Hitler émerge d'un long sommeil entouré de fidèles prêts à le servir par-delà la mort et les âges, dans Weird War ou dans les pages de Turok, c'est une nouvelle fois un message d'alerte qui est envoyé au lecteur : même lorsque le mal dort depuis très longtemps, on trouvera toujours quelques imbéciles pour le réveiller bien volontiers. Évidemment, je ne livre ici qu'une interprétation globale, et assurément un peu simpliste, de récits qui, en fonction de leur ton et de leur époque de production, mériteraient d'être décryptés un à un. Mais ce qu'il faut retenir, c'est que bien au-delà de l'aspect exotique, et parfois comique, de l'utilisation de Adolf Hitler comme personnage de comic book, il y a un fond. Un fond social et politique qui permet finalement de chasser quelques vieux démons tout en faisant en sorte que tout un chacun soit au fait de leur existence pour mieux les empêcher de revenir. N'hésitez pas à partager cet épisode sur les réseaux sociaux s'il vous a plu ! Merci pour votre soutien en tant que souscripteurs ! C'est aussi grâce à vous que cet article existe ! Get full access to CHRIS - POP CULTURE & COMICS at chrisstup.substack.com/subscribe

1 Samuel is one of the first books we look to for understanding the church's relationship to the state. Let's listen in on Martyn Lloyd Jones' sermon “An Earthly King,” and examine what he calls the most important turning point for the Children of Israel.  AnarchoChristian Resources: Israel Demands a King (article) - https://www.anarchochristian.com/israel-demands-a-king/ Israel Demands a King (Episode 3) - https://www.anarchochristian.com/israel-demands-king-ac003/ Monarchy (Episode 86) - https://www.anarchochristian.com/monarchy-ac086/ Divine Right of Impostors (article) - https://www.anarchochristian.com/divine-right-of-impostors/ The Unrecognizable Christ (article) - https://www.anarchochristian.com/the-unrecognizable-christ/ An Introduction to the Sermon on the Mount (Episode 61) - https://www.anarchochristian.com/an-introduction-to-the-sermon-on-the-mount-ac061/ The Beatitudes (Episode 64) - https://www.anarchochristian.com/the-beatitudes/ Amazon links:Books by MLJ: The Gospel In Genesis - https://amzn.to/3R2YoDD Studies In The Sermon On The Mount - https://amzn.to/3cbD1RI Commentary on Romans - https://amzn.to/3QMHRnI Spiritual Depression - https://amzn.to/3KdjHQx MLJ Documentary, Logic on Fire - https://amzn.to/3Cp6qT6 Other Resources: The MLJ Trust: https://www.mljtrust.org/ Download An Earthly King: https://www.mljtrust.org/sermons-online/1-samuel-12-12/an-earthly-king/ An Earthly King on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guJ-KQ5JMjA More on MLJ: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martyn_Lloyd-Jones   Sweet AnarchoChristian gear! Amazon - https://www.amazon.com/s?rh=n%3A7141123011%2Cp_4%3AAnarchoChristian&ref=bl_sl_s_ap_web_7141123011 Proud Libertarian - https://proudlibertarian.com/collections/anarchochristian Get your Tuttle Twins books through our affiliate link! https://tuttletwins.com/ref/anarchochristian  Support the show! Support the show on Patreon & PayPal Find us on the web! AnarchoChristian.com Twitter Facebook YouTube Subscribe today, and don't miss an episode! iTunes Google Play Stitcher Android YouTube Credits: Tune by Owen-Glass Beats by Semiotician  

Famed Welsh preacher and physician Martyn Lloyd-Jones (1899-1981), in a sermon series on Romans 1 which he started in 1958, once had this to say about why Hitler had never worried him. “I was never worried for a second about a man like Hitler; it was enough for me to read the thirty-seventh Psalm, and there I read of a man like him spreading himself like a green bay tree, a sort of colossus striding the whole earth. But I read on and learned that a day came when a man wanted to go to see him and to speak with him, and he could not find him. He searched everywhere for him; he could not find any trace of him; he had vanished. Why? God had blown upon him.” And that is well. But Martyn Lloyd-Jones had other things to say too about politics. For instance, when he came to preaching on Romans 13 from 1966-1967, he expressed at some length how and why he did not believe professing Christians should ever divide over politics. "Is there is only one view amongst Christians with regard to economics or any of these questions? The answer, quite plainly, is no. That is why I have always opposed the idea that there should be a Christian political party in this country. In some countries you will find such parties, but that, to me, is based on a complete misunderstanding of this teaching. You cannot have a Christian political party because Christians hold different views on the economy and other issues. You can have equally good Christians in the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party and the Labour Party. What is it that divides them? Not their Christianity, not their spiritual point of view, but their opinions with regard to specific problems in the realm of economics, or drainage even, or one of these other questions that law and government have to consider. Now I am not saying that the fact that people are Christians does not make a difference at all to their views on these matters. What I am saying is that you cannot say that there is ‘the Christian view' with regard to most of these questions that have to be considered by the powers that be. And historically it has, of course, always been the case that Christian people have differed for one another on many of these questions without there being any reflection whatsoever upon their Christianity." So then, Martyn Lloyd-Jones did not believe there should be a ‘Christian' political party in Britain. Christians hold different views on the economy and other issues. Yet Christians congregate in separate denominations because we disagree about doctrine and practice too. Should we not do that either? Clearly, not all disagreements between professing Christians are legitimate - for instance, in our day, consider the contention regarding sexual ethics, abortion, Climate Change, and public health policy. These are not just issues "of drainage even." It would be a mercy if we could say that, but we cannot. And if MLJ held that equally good Christians should be found in every political party, does that include the Communist party? And what about when such a person believes they can mix in Marxism with the Gospel and deny that anyone who doesn't really knows and follows Jesus? At a certain point, we must recognize that some profound political differences actually stem from profound theological and teleological differences. And some believe God's Word is a tool to transform their own hearts and minds, while others believe their political ideology should be the guide to reinterpret and even hijack the Scriptures. When the latter happens, we cannot always just shrug dispassionately because it's generally true that Christians can disagree. Sometimes political differences between those who claim Christ both stem from and result in false teaching, a false testimony, and a false gospel. We must be clear about that. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/garrett-ashley-mullet/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/garrett-ashley-mullet/support

Thank you so much to subscribers for being with us for this journey of 20 episodes and a 1000 plays. We hope for your continued support.  For any questions, suggestions or queries, you can follow and reach out to us on twitter https://twitter.com/AbhasMishra or our website https://anchor.fm/abhas-mishra In this episode we discuss the concept of irretrievable breakdown of marriage and the "Will they? Won't they?" attitude of the government in considering it as a ground of divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act. Some of you may argue that I have not read detailed scriptures of all religions and for that I have to agree that most of my knowledge comes from secondary sources.  A slight clarification that I don't say that Islam is the only religion that talks about divorce, I just mean that it is the one that talks about marriage being a contract and gives detailed mechanism fro divorce.  References: Naveen Kohli vs. Neelu Kohli (AIR 2006 SC 1675) Sivasankaran v. Santhimeenal (2021 7 MLJ 22) Views and opinions expressed do not reflect the opinions of the channel or the host. None of the views are meant to malign any religion, ethnicity, caste, organization, company or individual. The contents of the show are meant to spread awareness and should not be considered legal advice or solicitation. We do not accept any liabilities whatsoever for any loss or damage caused directly or indirectly by the use of any information contained in the episode or any conclusion drawn therein. Always consult a lawyer. LinkedIN profile of our Chambers: https://www.linkedin.com/company/76478950/ कानूनी कहानियों और व्याख्यान के लिए सुनें Kanooni Kisse

It's a new year at the old Five and Dime, and the Comic Book Kid is ringing it in by looking at the history of the MLJ's Man with the Super Brain, the Wizard.

FOLKS, the Buffalo Bills have clinched the playoffs for the second time in three years and we are joined by ESPN Analyst Marcel Louis-Jacques to recap the Week 15 madness. MLJ shares his reaction on the big Bills W in Pittsburgh, his opinions on the Bills Mafia from a national perspective, growing up as a sports fan in Sacramento, CA (#BeatLA), and memories from his time as a student at ASU. For that and much more, press play and enjoy. #GoodNightNOW #ThisTrainNeverStops

Konečně se hlásím s novou epizodou a s navazujícím pokračováním minulé epizody o sociálních sítích! Mlj život je teď docela obrácený vzhůru nohama a ani si nevzpomenu, kdy jsem naposledy byla třeba dva dny po sobě doma :D Londýn, Slovensko, hory, Praha, Francie. Děje se toho teď moc. O všem si ale pokecáme v nové epizodě The Healthy Tapes!V hlavní části se podíváme hned na několik negativ sociálních sítí, na mé zkušenosti, příhody a taky se s vámi podělím o mé tipy na to, jak to vše brát na těch internetech s rezervou, všemu nevěřit, jak se z toho nezbláznit a vytáhnout z toho jen to nejlepší.Tak si udělejte kafe, běžte se projít a pojďme se vrhnout na jednu z nejdelších epizod, co jsem zatím v rámci mého podcastu natáčela.

Intro…Welcome to the Cornerstone Baptist church podcast. My name is Justin Wheeler, I am the preaching pastor for Cornerstone and today we are in week 24 of our journey through the Heidelberg Catechism and I will be talking to you today about questions 62 - 64.Transition…This week, we are going to discuss the role that our individual good works play in the big picture of our salvation and our Christian life. Last week, we learned that it is 100% necessary for us to possess a perfect righteousness in order to be made right with God. But we also learned that this necessary righteousness is not something that we earn but something that is given to us by faith.In other words, the righteousness that gets us back into fellowship with God is not our own, it is a gift. We are saved by grace. We are made righteous by faith. We are saved by Jesus’ good works, not our own. But, if all this is true, and it is, then what is the point of being good? If we are saved by grace, what part does our personal pursuit of righteousness play in our lives?Lord’s Day Focus...Question 62: But why cannot our good works be the whole or part of our righteousness before God?Answer: Because the righteousness which can stand before the judgment-seat of God, must be perfect throughout and wholly conformable to the divine law, whereas even our best works in this life are all imperfect and defiled with sin.In order to give some commentary on question 62 and its answer, I want us to think about something that Jesus said at the very beginning of His ministry. I want to draw our attention to the posture of heart that Jesus says is absolutely essential for anyone who is interested in the Kingdom of God. I want to take us all the way back to the Sermon on the Mount.Of all Jesus’ teaching, none is more readily identified and associated with Him than the Sermon on the Mount found in Matthew chapters 5, 6, and 7. It appears in the first book of the New Testament and while it is not the first recorded statement of Jesus, it is by far the longest and most comprehensive of His public sermons. It seems clear that Matthew views this message as the foundation upon which Jesus’ life, ministry and kingdom are to be established.The sermon is ground-breaking on multiple levels. It is the inauguration speech of the King of the Universe. It is the sermon that broke 400 years of divine silence and at the same time it introduced the world to the Kingdom of God in a way that it had never known before. This sermon describes what human life and human community look like when they come under the rule of God’s grace.[1]Some people love this sermon, some hate it, but ignoring it isn’t really an option. This sermon is intended to shake things up. It takes the value system of our sinful world and turns it upside-down. It points an unflinching finger at religious legalists and hypocrites and tells them that they will have no part in the Kingdom of Heaven. But it also makes clear that not one part of the law of God will be overlooked.But the sermon doesn’t do what many of us might expect. It doesn’t start with a list of religious duties that we must all perform in order to earn God’s love. Instead, it starts with the posture of heart that is necessary for entry into the Kingdom of God.Matt 5:3 “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.4 “Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.5 “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.6 “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.The phrase poor in spirit means to be completely impoverished. It means to recognize one’s own poverty of the soul. Even in our own day we use this term to refer to someone who leads the life of a beggar. This is someone who has no property, no money, no power, no status; someone who is completely dependent on others for support. This person is empty, with nothing to offer and they know it. But the type of poverty that Jesus is after deals with one’s soul.The poor in spirit are those who have come to see and feel the brokenness in their heart and the bankruptcy in their soul. When it comes to righteousness, true righteousness, they are no better than a beggar on the street. Even if they had a little money in their pocket it wouldn’t come close to paying off the debt they owe to God, they are truly poor in spirit.No one wants to find themselves in this place. Our natural inclination is to assume that we have much to offer and that our spiritual life, though not perfect, is far from a state of poverty. The Pharisees that gathered around to hear Jesus’ message would have scoffed at this opening statement. This is not what the religious people in the crowd wanted to hear, but this is the point of entry into the Kingdom of God. This is how we are made to feel when the gospel hits our ears for the first time.The gospel does two things in us; it tears us down and then it builds us back up. The gospel shows that our hearts are so desperately wicked that there is no hope that we can overcome our past sin much less do enough to earn eternal life. The gospel holds up the law of God demanding that we keep it perfectly, and then shows us that we have no chance. We are utterly incapable of pleasing God on our own. The gospel puts us on our knees before God and that is exactly where Christ wants us to start because only those who have come to understand their poverty of spirit before God are fit for the Kingdom of Heaven.To be poor in spirit means an absence of spiritual pride, an absence of self-assurance and self-reliance. It is this tremendous awareness that we are nothing in the presence of God (Lloyd-Jones).[2]To be poor in spirit is to be like the prophet Isaiah who saw the Lord high and lifted up, but he fell to knees and cried out, “Woe is me! For I am lost…I am unclean and everyone around me is unclean as well.”To be poor in spirit is to be like the apostle Paul who could quote a spiritual resume that would shame everyone in this room, but when he stood before Christ he came to realize that all of his religious past was worthless. Paul said, “I count it all to be loss…like nothing but rubbish (dung) in the eyes of God.”To be poor in spirit is to be like the Tax Collector in Luke 18 who would not even look up to heaven but instead beat his chest saying, “O God, be merciful to me as sinner.”When Jesus says, “Happy are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven…” He is making it clear that the kingdom is fit only for those who feel that their only hope of salvation lies outside of themselves because on their own they are nothing more than a beggar.There is no one in the Kingdom of God who is not poor in spirit. It is the fundamental posture of its citizens and it is the entry point into the Christian life.That’s what question 62 is trying to help us understand. The righteousness that restores our relationship with God is not our own, because our own righteousness is imperfect and full of holes, like swiss cheese. Our good works are incomplete, but Jesus’ good works are perfect, and therein lies our hope.Question 63: How is it that our good works merit nothing, while yet it is God’s will to reward them in this life and in that which is to come?Answer: The reward comes not of merit but of grace.Years ago I read a quote that helped put this answer into perspective for me.“Grace is not opposed to effort, it is opposed to earning. Earning is an attitude. Effort is an action. Grace, you know, does not just have to do with forgiveness of sins alone.”[3]This goes against our natural instincts. We naturally think that in order for us to obtain what we desire most we will have to work for it, at least, I think that most of us think that way. We are born with a debtors ethic, which causes us to think this way.The gospel destroys that ethic. Undeserved mercy and unearned reward don’t make sense in the world, but they do in the Kingdom of God. The rewards of blessings in this life and heaven in the life to come are not the result of our effort, but the work of God’s grace.Question 64: But does not this doctrine make men careless and profane?Answer: No; for it is impossible that those who are implanted into Christ by true faith, should not bring forth fruits of thankfulness.Thinking back to the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said that our righteousness must exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees if we hope to enter the kingdom of Heaven. Does this mean that we must keep all of the 240 commandments and 365 prohibitions that they added to the law of God? No! Christian righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the Pharisees in type not in degree. The righteousness that is pleasing to God is the inward righteousness that begins in the heart and then faithfully seeks to live out the law in life.We call this sanctification and it is an ongoing work of God’s grace where God’s people are, over the course of their lives, transformed more and more into the image of Christ. God enables us by His Spirit and His Word to grow in faithfulness more and more and to turn from sin more and more. This process starts when we are born again and it continues throughout our lives as a fulfillment of the promise that God made in Ezekiel 36.Eze 36:26 And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.If you are a born-again believer in Christ then you have the Spirit of God within you, but that doesn’t mean that you can dispense with the law, because the work of the Spirit is to give us new hearts, to write God’s law on those new hearts, and to enable us to walk in obedience to God. Not in order to earn God’s love, but because God’s love has already been poured out on us by grace.Jesus is not interested in empty, superficial, hypocritical religious practice. Religion is a word that has the ability to conjure up both positive and negative ideas when it is used. The term religion, when used in a negative sense, refers to the empty religious rituals and formalities that are devised by man and are sadly so prevalent in the church. Behind the negative use of the term is the belief that religious practices are sufficient for us to earn the favor of God. Religion says, “I obey the rules so that God will accept me” and when this idea is full blown it teaches people that in order to be saved we must simply keep all the rules.But this is a lie and this is not the gospel of Jesus Christ. The gospel says that “God accepts me on the basis of Jesus ‘works and in response to this grace, I obey (Eph 2:8-10).”Thanks for joining me today as I discuss the Heidelberg Catechism. I hope you’ll join me again next week as we look at Lord’s Day 25 together and discuss questions 65 – 68 on the Holy Sacraments.Conclusion…If you want to learn more about Cornerstone Baptist church, you can find us online at Cornerstonewylie.org. You can follow us on Twitter or Instagram @cbcwylie. You can find us on Facebook at facebook.com/cornerstonewylie. You can also subscribe to this podcast on iTunes or google play to stay up to date on all the new content.Thanks for listening. [1] John Stott, The Message of the Sermon on the Mount (Pg. 18)[2] MLJ, pg. 50.[3] https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/49184-grace-is-not-opposed-to-effort-it-is-opposed-to

Ephesians 4:2 “with all humility and gentleness, with patience, showing forbearance to one another in love, being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” What a gracious God that we serve who has given us His blessed Word, which both convicts and encourages, it reproves and it exhorts. And we as children of God should treasure the times that His Word convicts and reproves just as much as when it encourages and exhorts. Why? Because it brings to our attention the reality of the awesome process of sanctification that is taking place in our lives. It reminds us of God’s love for us as he by His love, gently molds us and makes us into the image of His very own Son, our blessed Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. And that simply would not happen without the reproof and conviction from God through His Word. Proverbs 13:1 says that "A wise son accepts his father’s discipline, But a scoffer does not listen to rebuke." Just as your children should accept your discipline, we all should accept discipline from God, knowing the great benefit which will result, that is our sanctification, our being made holy, into the likeness of the One we serve. I have no doubt that as we continue in Ephesians chapters 4-6, which will teach us how to live the Christian life in a way that is pleasing to our Lord. That as we continue through these passages that there will be an abundance of opportunity for the Holy Spirit to convict each one of us as He guides us into proper Christian living. So I want you to expect that and to receive it. And I hope you will anticipate that with joy although in the short run it is sometimes painful. I am looking forward to seeing how God will sharpen you as well as me as we continue on through this journey together. I hope that you will approach all of your Bible study in that way, with excitement saying "God, how are you going to change me today?" "What are you going to teach me and how will it change my life for your glory?” Our next passage in Matthew 6 as we work our way through the sermon on the Mount is Jesus talking about fasting and the fact that many use fasting as a way to gain attention from others which feeds their pride. It is rather incredible that fasting can be turned into a prideful thing and yet Jesus tells us that it can and it is. I think for most Christians in our day fasting is greatly misunderstood. I have spent some time trying to better understand Christian, biblical fasting and next week I hope to be ready to preach from Matthew 6:16-18. But for this week I want us to consider what may be the primary attitude that is required to truly fast and pray. That attitude, characteristic is humility. Jesus points out that fasting can be done in pride but biblical God pleasing fasting is a humble act. Without humility one cannot fast in a truly Christian way. So today let’s look at humility from Ephesians chapter 4 verse 2. Now, the first verse of Ephesians 4, Paul said this, "I, therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, entreat you" or beg you, "to walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called." Paul exhorts us to walk in a manner or to live our lives in a manner that is worthy of our high calling. Or in a manner that is equal to or balances out with our calling unto Christianity. He raises the level of our walk to such heights that we have no choice, no hope of meeting those requirements unless we are completely dependent on God who supplies all power, which is all sufficient to keep us in the narrow way. To keep us on that narrow path which leads to eternal life. After Paul makes this lofty statement that we should walk in a manner worthy of our calling, he does not stop there. He does not leave us hanging wondering how to do that but he goes on to instruct us on how to do so. He goes on to tell us what a Christians life looks like if that person is walking in a manner worthy of his calling. Paul gives four characteristics of a Christians life who is walking in that manner which is worthy of his calling. Look at these four characteristics. Verse 2, "with all humility and gentleness, with patience, showing forbearance to one another in love" then verse 3 he exhorts us to "be diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." Paul gives us four characteristics or four attitudes that must be present in the life of the Christian who is "walking in a manner worthy of [his] calling”. Four things and as with many of Paul’s writings, the order in which he lists things are of great importance. He first gives us the attitude of humility then gentleness, then patience and then forbearing love. These four characteristics are a progression, each one building on the one preceding it. The genuine exercise of one leading to the exercise of those that follow. He begins with what many would call THE foundational characteristic or the foundational virtue of a Christian. Humility. If someone were to ask you, "What is THE attitude that would most characterize a Christian?" How would you respond? Christians are to be different so what attitude of the Christian would most set him apart from the world. I mean if you had to just give one, what would it be? Well, I think you could make a good case for the attitude of humility which should characterize all of our lives. And I believe that that is why Paul begins with humility in this listing, and then adds to this list, because each of the next three attitudes flow from this one attitude of humility. Humility is an attitude which is not seen in and of itself but is obviously present as it manifest itself through certain actions. And in Ephesians 4:2 humility expresses itself through "gentleness and patience and forbearing love." The word here for humility is translated from a Greek word which literally means "humiliation of mind" or "to think or judge with lowliness or to have lowliness of mind." John Wesley observed that "neither the Romans nor the Greeks had a word for humility." Isn’t that interesting? You may not know it but this particular word which is translated here as humility was actually born with Christianity. It is a word that was coined by Christians and probably by the Apostle Paul himself, to describe a quality for which no other word was available in the first century. And even after it was coined by Christians for many years Pagans used it almost exclusively to describe Christians in a very derogatory way. Now, both the Greeks and the Romans were a very proud people. So to refer to someone as one possessing humility of mind would to them be an extremely negative and even hateful act. Humility to them would not be a virtue but a sign of great weakness as one might describe a coward or a weak fool. You see back then, pride was the primary virtue of the day. Pride, the very opposite of humility was the most sought after characteristic in their society. That was the pinnacle of their humanistic faith. It shows us in a very real sense that although much time has passed since that first century, most things have not changed at all. Attitudes remain the same. Oh there is talk of humility in our day, it has become a common word in our society, but when we come across a truly humble person, even in the Church, all to often he is the exception instead of the rule. What does it mean to walk in humility or literally "to think or judge ourselves with lowliness of mind" What does it mean? AS I attempt to explain, I want you to follow along very closely because, humility being a familiar word in our day, is common to your vocabulary but, I want to take you through some passages which I hope will cause you to truly examine your walk. And as we do, ask yourself, "Am I walking accordingly?" "Am I faithfully walking in a manner worthy of my calling?" To walk in this manner is to proceed through this life regarding other people as more important than yourself. Remember humility is "to think or judge yourself with lowliness of mind." So, It is to think of others first, and yourself last. It is to think of others peoples needs, whether they be physical, spiritual or emotional as more important than your own. Now already we see a contrast with our society. In Philipians 2:3 Paul gives us a very familiar passage. He says, "Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind let each of you regard one another as more important than himself; do not merely look out for your own personal interest, but also for the interest of others.” He says "do NOTHING from selfishness or empty conceit" Or that could be translated more literally like this , "Do nothing from selfishness or vainglory." Or self glory. He is saying do not do anything with the motive or purpose of bringing glory to yourself. You see that would be contrary to our definition of humility. Do not act in a way that has as its goal to bring attention to you, for that is "vainglory”, or "empty glory”. You see bringing glory to yourself is an issue of pride. Which again is the opposite of the very attribute of humility that we as believers should display. Glory is meant for God, and for God alone. So, attempting to raise yourself up in other people's eyes and bringing glory to yourself brings you into direct competition with God. We should do all things for His sake. Pointing people to Him. Drawing attention away from ourselves and directing people to Him and His divine character. Remember what John the Baptist said at the very height of his popularity and ministry? John the Baptist with humility of mind, with lowliness of mind said of Jesus, "He must increase, but I must decrease." Now I know that probably nothing so far has been new to you. If your grew up in the church then you are familiar with statements like "Give God the glory" Or "We should do all for His glory" or you have probably been taught that you are to deflect the glory to Him. And all of those things are true, but if they are not understood or not practiced then they are empty words which produce nothing of value. Think about your life. Think about your "so called" accomplishments. Maybe you graduated from college, maybe you excelled in some sport, maybe you work for a great company and hold a coveted position. Maybe your children are learning under your teaching, maybe you see that as a great accomplishment. Do you take pride in these things? We are prone to, aren’t we? Maybe you have just finished a major project successfully. Children, maybe you are doing well in school, that is a positive accomplishment. But, what is your attitude regarding any of these or any other accomplishments in your life? Do you sit back and bask in your accomplishment? Do you revel in your success? Do you glory in your achievements? Do you find ways to let others know of what you have done? Do you quietly sit back and receive glory from others? Is your attitude that of pride? OR humility? Pride exalts self. Humility exalts God. Pride causes us to parade our accomplishments. David Martyn Lloyd-Jones, one of the greatest bible expositors of this century says that pride results in "self-advertisement”. Advertising ourselves before others so that they will recognize us and so that we will be exalted in their minds. And you know that we sometimes do this in the subtlest ways. We slip things into a conversation appearing innocent of pride but at the same time hoping that we will be exalted in someone’s eyes. But you must remember, true humility is an attitude, it is internal. We can appear humble because of certain actions, we can fool people for a time, but true humility is an attitude of the heart. And that is what I want you to ponder this morning. Not what are you doing as acts of humility but deep down within you what is the attitude of your heart in regard to this issue of humility and pride. How do you view yourself in relation to others and in relation to God? Are you really concerned with others well being or are you self centered? To what degree do you put others needs ahead of your own? During the days of slavery in the West Indies, a group of Christians found it impossible to witness to the slaves there because they were almost totally separated from them as non-slaves --many of whom felt it beneath them to even speak to a slave. There were two young missionaries, however, who were determined to reach those oppressed people whatever the cost. They must have considered Philippians 2:3-4 "Let nothing be done through selfish ambition or conceit, but in lowliness of mind let each esteem others better than himself. Let each of you look out not only for his own interests, but also for the interest of others." So what did these young missionaries do? They laid aside their own privileges, and in order to fulfill their calling they joined the slaves. They willingly became slaves. They worked and lived beside the slaves, becoming totally identified with them. They shared their overwork, their beatings and their abuse. And the two missionaries soon won the hearts of those slaves, many of whom accepted the God who could move men to such loving selflessness. That happens from a attitude of true humility. But to understand true humility, the ultimate example that we must turn to is our Lord Himself. Of all the of Christ’s attributes that He displayed on the earth, His attitude of humility may be the most difficult for us to comprehend. I mean, if anyone ever deserved to exalt himself or to draw attention and praise to Himself, it would be our Lord Jesus Christ. But instead, he modeled for us humility. And we are to walk as He walked. Look at what Paul said in Philippians 2:5. "Have this attitude in yourself which was also in Christ Jesus." Paul is exhorting us in Philippians just as in Ephesians 4 to humility. And then he goes on to illustrate for us Christ’s perfect example of humility. "Have this attitude in yourself which was also in Christ Jesus, who although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond servant, and being made in the likeness of man. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.” What a staggering and beautiful picture of humility of our Lord. Are you ever tempted to think highly of yourself in relation to others? John proclaims in 1 John 4:6 "The one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked." We have our example in Christ. Do you ever justify in your mind your self worth over someone else’s? Do you ever think that your needs are above your brothers or sisters needs or your neighbors needs convincing yourself that you are justified in ignoring someone’s poverty? Whether it be poverty in physical, emotional or spiritual things? Christ didn’t. He stooped down in pure humility into the midst of fallen and depraved humanity, who hated Him and hated His Father. And He did so in love and in obedience as well as an example to those who would follow Him. This passage says that He "emptied Himself”, He laid aside His glory, the glory that was due him, for a time in order to point mankind to His Father, that He, the Father, may be glorified. He did not accept it for Himself. And that is so evident in his ministry. He constantly pointed His followers to God the Father. He stated that He came to fulfill His Father's will. He attributed His power to the Father as coming from the Father and not from Himself. If anyone one ever deserved to receive glory and honor and praise on this earth it would be Christ. If anyone ever had a right to exalt Himself and to "self advertise" as MLJ states it, it would be Christ. But no. He emptied Himself in humility and glorified the Father who sent Him. That Philippians passage also said that He took on the form of a bond-servant or slave. And that He was made in the likeness of man, and that He appeared as a man. We may be tempted as humans to think that that is not such a great act of humility, that is becoming and appearing as a man. But that is considering the passage from a man centered view. Think about it. The God of all the universe of all creation who is not bound by time or space to be clothed in humanness. To be bound by flesh and blood. What a humbling experience that must have been for our Lord. The verse continues and says that He humbled himself even to the point of death on a cross. The most degrading humiliating death of the day was that of crucifixion. To be raised up on a cross in humiliation for all to see and for all to ridicule and spit upon and curse and blaspheme. Our Lord was a perfect example for us. He walked in humility, so that we might live. And who are we to think that we should think highly of ourselves and think of ourselves as more important that someone else? Or to think that we are deserving of glory or praise when Christ Himself refused such glory and instead offered it up to God the Father? If you are going to walk in a manner worthy of your calling then you must walk in humility. And to ignore humility, to lay it aside is to walk in pride, which is to walk in sin. The first sin was the sin of pride. Pride led the angel Lucifer to exalt himself above his Creator and Lord. Because the bright "star of the morning" continually said, "I will, I will, I will" in opposition to God’s will, he was cast out of heaven (Isaiah 14:12-23). Because he said, "I am a god," the Lord cast him "from the mountain of God" (Ezekiel 28:11-19). The original sin of Adam and Eve was pride, trusting in their own understanding above God’s. The writer of Proverbs warns "When pride comes, then comes dishonor" (11:2), "Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before stumbling”, and again, "Haughty eyes and a proud heart, the lamp of the wicked is sin" (21:4). Isaiah warned, "The proud look of a man will be abased, and the loftiness of man will be humbled, and the Lord alone will be exalted in that day" (Isa. 2:11). Notice in that verse that man will be humbled, all men will be humbled some day. And in Jeremiah 50:31-32 it says, "Behold I am against you, O arrogant one, For your day has come, the time when I shall punish you. And the arrogant one will stumble and fall with no one to raise him up." And in the last chapter of the Old Testament it says, "For behold, the day is coming, burning like a furnace; and all the arrogant and every evildoer will be chaff." Pride is the supreme temptation of Satan, because pride is at the heart of his own evil nature. And pride is the polar opposite of what our walk should reflect. Well, the last thing I want you to see this evening is the freeing aspect of humility. The joy and peace that is found in walking in humility. You see the world and psychology would tell you that if you do not take pride in yourself and in your accomplishments then you have a very unhealthy view of yourself and they could probably come up with a very scholarly diagnosis for that. You may think that walking in all humility will be difficult or even impossible. You may think it leads to a defeatist type attitude. You may picture a truly humble person as one who is always kicking himself or beating himself up in an unhealthy way. As someone whose head is always down and whose attitude is negative toward himself, believing that he can do nothing, or someone believing that he can accomplish nothing for the kingdom of God. You may think of someone who is entirely negative and always down and depressed. But want I want you to see is that is simply not the case. You see a truly humble person has a proper view of himself, a lowly opinion of himself, and therefore his focus for all of life must move from himself to God. To walk humbly we are forced to focus upon God. All of those things I just described would be true of a person whose focus is upon who? Upon themselves. Right? But for a Christians it is not so. But for the proud all things revolve around self and eventually self will fail. If your hope is in yourself you will be disappointed, if in God, you will live a life of victory. Look at the focus. Pride says, "I can do all things”. That is what Satan said isn’t it? But humility says, "I can do all things, through Christ who strengthens me”. This is so important to see. Paul was humble, yet he did not sit around in a pitiful state with an attitude of defeat. No, He realized that he could do all things, through Christ who was his strength. Do you see the power in that. Living in pride of self is like living in a house if cards. Someday it will all fall down. Pride says advertises self. But Humility advertises God. See the change of focus? Pride parades self, but Humility parades God. Pride boasts of self and self accomplishments. But Humility boasts in the Lord. Pride says my strength and power comes from within, but humility understands that God supplies all power and is perfected in weakness. Pride says I am strong. Humility says God is strong. Pride says that I am adequate for the job, humility says my adequacy is in Christ. Pride says look at me, humility says look at God. A Christian clothed in humility should be the most joyful of all who walk the earth. Because his focus is on the One who can accomplish all things. Yet a prideful man must look internally, at what is truly weak and helpless. To walk in humility is to walk with a proper view of both man, or yourself and a proper view of God and that is to walk in a manner worthy of your calling. So, I want to encourage you this week, to walk in a manner worthy of your calling with all humility. Consider first of all God’s glory, because glory belongs to Him. He is the only one to properly receive glory and honor and praise, and also consider those around you and their needs as more important than your own. Knowing that through God all things are possible, and it is He who strengthens you to glorify Himself and to serve and minister to others. And next week, Lord willing we will see how this Christian characteristic of humility will be key in the matter of fasting according to the will of God.

This is a sermon by Martin Lloyd Jones from the MLJ trust. In it, Lloyd Jones reminds us that the gospel is an offensive message and calls us to stand as good soldiers of Christ and to faithfully preach salvation in no other name but Jesus.

How are we preparing our students for the complex, uncertain future? How well are we preparing those who prepare our students? If we grow and teach essential Leadership Skills, we can lay a strong foundation for any future! Continue or start your journey here: The Master Leadership Journal (www.masterleadership.org/MLJ)   See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Stay tuned for the best podcast in Anchor's life. • Facts (AnchorFM Version - Prod. MLJ the Beatmaker)

Another Previews catalog showed up on their doorsteps, so it's time to gaze into the tomorrow of July 2016 and see what catches Mike and Greg's fancy. Black Hammer! Garden of Flesh! The Art of Stelfreeze! Bone!!! Adventure Time! MLJ! Sabrina! Kamandi! New Mutants! ROM! Dirty Duck! Peter Bagge's Neat Stuff! Fantasy Sports! All that, plus a look back to the days of flexidiscs and Waldenbooks, why the new Image Plus ‘catalog' is a particularly bad showing from a publisher crowing a ‘creator-first' agenda, just how many comics ARE there in the Marvel-official Civil War I reading list, and who has the scariest lawyers (Mickey Mouse or Ronald McDonald), and much more! Robots From Tomorrow is a weekly comics podcast recorded deep beneath the Earth's surface. You can subscribe to it via iTunes or through the RSS feed at RobotsFromTomorrow.com. You can also follow Mike and Greg on Twitter. This episode is brought to you by Third Eye Comics. Enjoy your funny books.

“Prayer is beyond any question the highest activity of the human soul. Man is at his greatest and highest when upon his knees he comes face to face with God.”- MLJ

In this episode, Alyssa Clutterbuck sat down with Professor Mohsen al Attar of Queen's University Belfast to discuss his provocative article in the latest issue of the MLJ, “Reframing the “Universality” of International Law in a Globalizing World”.

In this episode, Alyssa Clutterbuck sat down with Professor Mohsen al Attar of Queen's University Belfast to discuss his provocative article in the latest issue of the MLJ, “Reframing the “Universality” of International Law in a Globalizing World”.

We sat down with Dr. Hugo Tremblay of Montréal's Centre for International Sustainable Development Law to discuss his fascinating article in the latest issue of the MLJ, “Eco-Terrorists facing Armageddon: The Defence of Necessity and Legal Normativity in the Context of Environmental Crisis”.

We sat down with Dr. Hugo Tremblay of Montréal's Centre for International Sustainable Development Law to discuss his fascinating article in the latest issue of the MLJ, “Eco-Terrorists facing Armageddon: The Defence of Necessity and Legal Normativity in the Context of Environmental Crisis”.

In this episode: Dr. Peter Coogan joins the crew to discuss his theory that the sequel to Watchmen doesn't need to be written, because it already has... Clues to the sequel to Watchmen By Peter Coogan This reading of Watchmen was inspired by a comment by Sara J. Van Ness in Watchmen as Literature (McFarland, 2010). She pointed to the excerpt from Under the Hood in chapter 1 and the paperclipped note on its first page, “‘We present here excerpts from Hollis Mason’s autobiography, UNDER THE HOOD, leading up t the time when he became the masked adventurer, Nite Owl. Reprinted with permission of the author’ (27). This ‘we’ is the novels only reference to the narrator” (p. 61). This comment inspired me to track down the identity of the narrator and it led to a series of discoveries about the novel. Read through these clues and see if you can figure out why there is no need for a sequel to Watchmen. How did Moore and Gibbons build the sequel into the text? These clues assume that Watchmen has been published diagetically (diagetic = in the world of the story). What does the diagetic publication of Watchmen imply about Veidt’s status in 1986? Who probably owns DC Comics in the world of Watchmen and what does that probable imply or indicate? I.9.4. What do Under the Hood and Gladiator have in common? What book is missing from Hollis Mason’s bookshelf? How is Hollis Mason’s authorship of Under the Hood connected to the authorship/source of the diagetic Watchmen? D1-1. Under the Hood excerpt. In the paperclipped note, who is “we”, where is “here”, and how do they have the permission of the author, Hollis Mason, who is dead? Who has inherited Hollis Mason’s copyright of Under the Hood. IV.15. Who has access to this conversation between Hollis Mason and Dr. Manhattan after Mason’s retirement? D-6. Who would have the ability to get Kovac’s arrest report and various childhood files? Or Malcom Long’s notebooks? VII.13-15. Who has access to the story of Dan and Laurie’s failed lovemaking? D-7. Why is “Blood from the Shoulder of Pallas” included? It doesn’t reveal anything about the background of the characters. It doesn’t supply any real information that contributes to an understanding of the larger story. IX. Who has access to Jon and Laurie’s conversation on Mars? This is a crucial conversation (more so than some of the invented conversations discussed below in the “Problems” section) because it explains why Jon returned to Earth and would therefore offer a real selling point for the book. D-9. Who has access to Sally Jupiter’s scrapbook? D-10. Who could have taken a picture of Veidt’s desktop, with calendar? XI. Who has access to Veidt’s discussions with Dan and Rorschach at Karnak? XII. Who has access to the events at Karnak? XII.20 What does the publication of Watchmen mean about Dan and Laurie’s agreement to keep Veidt’s plan secret? Problems with this theory: It seems unlikely that Moore and Gibbons intended this reading of Watchmen as they initially only planned 6 issues and originally intended to run letter pages after issue three and so included Under the Hood excerpts only as a placeholder until letter pages started. Moore originally planned to use MLJ’s Mighty Crusader characters and so started the story with the death of the Shield. All of these arguments are versions of the intentional fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_fallacy). Watchmen was published in September 1986, so the turnaround time from October of 1985 is problematic, but not impossible. Some of the depiction of the characters has to be declared fictional or speculative under this theory: All the Bernie/Bernard interaction at the newsstand, the Shea/Hira interaction on the island and the freighter, the police officers interaction in chapter 5 (and elsewhere), Godfrey and Seymour at the New Frontiersman, Veidt’s interactions with his servants and his role in their deaths. But some of these interactions could have been recorded by Veidt in his bugging and so might have been found. And other interactions might have come out of Congressional testimony, other investigations, or interviews published as part of the coverage of the revelations of Veidt’s role in the squid attack (such as the war room in chapter 10). Likely the inclusion of Tales of the Black Freighter is symbolic, either on the part of the source or “Moore” and “Gibbons” (the diagetic versions of Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons). It’s also likely that many of the other texts mentioned in the book (e.g. The Day the Earth Stood Still, “The Architects of Fear”) are also symbolic.

In this episode: Dr. Peter Coogan joins the crew to discuss his theory that the sequel to Watchmen doesn't need to be written, because it already has... Clues to the sequel to Watchmen By Peter Coogan This reading of Watchmen was inspired by a comment by Sara J. Van Ness in Watchmen as Literature (McFarland, 2010). She pointed to the excerpt from Under the Hood in chapter 1 and the paperclipped note on its first page, “‘We present here excerpts from Hollis Mason’s autobiography, UNDER THE HOOD, leading up t the time when he became the masked adventurer, Nite Owl. Reprinted with permission of the author’ (27). This ‘we’ is the novels only reference to the narrator” (p. 61). This comment inspired me to track down the identity of the narrator and it led to a series of discoveries about the novel. Read through these clues and see if you can figure out why there is no need for a sequel to Watchmen. How did Moore and Gibbons build the sequel into the text? These clues assume that Watchmen has been published diagetically (diagetic = in the world of the story). What does the diagetic publication of Watchmen imply about Veidt’s status in 1986? Who probably owns DC Comics in the world of Watchmen and what does that probable imply or indicate? I.9.4. What do Under the Hood and Gladiator have in common? What book is missing from Hollis Mason’s bookshelf? How is Hollis Mason’s authorship of Under the Hood connected to the authorship/source of the diagetic Watchmen? D1-1. Under the Hood excerpt. In the paperclipped note, who is “we”, where is “here”, and how do they have the permission of the author, Hollis Mason, who is dead? Who has inherited Hollis Mason’s copyright of Under the Hood. IV.15. Who has access to this conversation between Hollis Mason and Dr. Manhattan after Mason’s retirement? D-6. Who would have the ability to get Kovac’s arrest report and various childhood files? Or Malcom Long’s notebooks? VII.13-15. Who has access to the story of Dan and Laurie’s failed lovemaking? D-7. Why is “Blood from the Shoulder of Pallas” included? It doesn’t reveal anything about the background of the characters. It doesn’t supply any real information that contributes to an understanding of the larger story. IX. Who has access to Jon and Laurie’s conversation on Mars? This is a crucial conversation (more so than some of the invented conversations discussed below in the “Problems” section) because it explains why Jon returned to Earth and would therefore offer a real selling point for the book. D-9. Who has access to Sally Jupiter’s scrapbook? D-10. Who could have taken a picture of Veidt’s desktop, with calendar? XI. Who has access to Veidt’s discussions with Dan and Rorschach at Karnak? XII. Who has access to the events at Karnak? XII.20 What does the publication of Watchmen mean about Dan and Laurie’s agreement to keep Veidt’s plan secret? Problems with this theory: It seems unlikely that Moore and Gibbons intended this reading of Watchmen as they initially only planned 6 issues and originally intended to run letter pages after issue three and so included Under the Hood excerpts only as a placeholder until letter pages started. Moore originally planned to use MLJ’s Mighty Crusader characters and so started the story with the death of the Shield. All of these arguments are versions of the intentional fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_fallacy). Watchmen was published in September 1986, so the turnaround time from October of 1985 is problematic, but not impossible. Some of the depiction of the characters has to be declared fictional or speculative under this theory: All the Bernie/Bernard interaction at the newsstand, the Shea/Hira interaction on the island and the freighter, the police officers interaction in chapter 5 (and elsewhere), Godfrey and Seymour at the New Frontiersman, Veidt’s interactions with his servants and his role in their deaths. But some of these interactions could have been recorded by Veidt in his bugging and so might have been found. And other interactions might have come out of Congressional testimony, other investigations, or interviews published as part of the coverage of the revelations of Veidt’s role in the squid attack (such as the war room in chapter 10). Likely the inclusion of Tales of the Black Freighter is symbolic, either on the part of the source or “Moore” and “Gibbons” (the diagetic versions of Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons). It’s also likely that many of the other texts mentioned in the book (e.g. The Day the Earth Stood Still, “The Architects of Fear”) are also symbolic.

GameSpeaker Entertainment was onsite at the MLJ 2007 event.