text:
How to Play the Togel SDY Hari Ini Lottery Online
Whether you're a beginner or an experienced Togel SDY Hari Ini Lottery player, there are plenty of ways to play. Some states offer in-house games, while others feature a variety of multi-state draw games. And some states have begun legalizing online Togel SDY Hari Ini Lottery games.
The first lotteries in the world date back to 205 to 187 BC, when the Roman Empire was in its heyday. The first commercial lotterie was organized by Emperor Augustus. These lotteries were used by governments to help the poor and to improve fortifications.
Today, most modern governments recognize the importance of lotteries. They use the money from ticket sales to provide for public education, transportation services, and care for the elderly. The Togel SDY Hari Ini Lottery's popularity is evident, as ticket sales continue to break records. In fact, weekly online Togel SDY Hari Ini Lottery sales in Michigan reached $8 million in less than 18 months.
The Togel SDY Hari Ini Lottery offers players the choice of eight draw games. Players also have the opportunity to participate in three multi-state draw games. These include Mega Millions, Megabucks, and the tri-state Megabucks. And the New Hampshire Togel SDY Hari Ini Lottery offers players the chance to win Powerball.
Online Togel SDY Hari Ini Lottery games are now available in six states. Most states do not offer them online, though. However, the state of New Jersey is in the process of legalizing online Togel SDY Hari Ini Lottery games. In addition, several Northeastern states are considering legalizing online lotteries. And Washington DC is launching its own online Togel SDY Hari Ini Lottery in February of 2021.
North Dakota Togel SDY Hari Ini Lottery began operating in 2004. The state's proceeds are used to support gambling treatment and prevention programs.


text:
Proper 22C
Girardian Lectionary > Reflections > Year C > Proper 22C
Last revised: October 21, 2019
Click Reload or Refresh for latest version
PROPER 22 (October 2-8) — YEAR C / Ordinary Time 27
RCL: Lamentations 1:1-6; 2 Timothy 1:1-14; Luke 17:5-10
RoCa: Habakkuk 1:2-3; 2:2-4; 2 Timothy 1:6-8, 13-14; Luke 17:5-10
Opening Comments: Elements of a New Reformation
In 2016 there was a new resource to encouraging reformation in the church, one that offers one of the most compact and effectively eloquent cases for transformation in the church: Brian McLaren's The Great Spiritual Migration: How the World's Largest Religion Is Seeking a Better Way to Be Christian. (See also my review of this book.) So I planned a preview in a three-part sermon series, based around the three parts of this book: "From a System of Beliefs to a Way of Life," "From a Violent God of Domination to a Nonviolent God of Liberation," and "From Organized Religion to Organizing Religion." The first part, "From a System of Beliefs to a Way of Life," I linked in this week's text to the word "faith" (pistis in the Greek). The Reformation created a culture that interpreted "faith" primarily as a system of beliefs, so that the Gospel became the grace of being promised the afterlife for assent to the system of beliefs.
The New Reformation deeply challenges this interpretation of "faith." It may include a system of beliefs, but it is secondary to faithfully following Jesus in the way of Love. Another contemporary writer who effectively argues this case is Diana Butler Bass, especially her books Christianity after Religion and Grounded. In my 2016 sermon, "The Great Spiritual Migration, Part 1: From a System of Beliefs to Learning the Way of Love," I also made prominent use of Butler Bass's articulation of reversing the "three B's." Reformation church culture prioritized Believing, Behaving, Belonging. The New Reformation makes the system of beliefs secondary, reversing the priorty to Belonging, Behaving, Believing. Both McLaren and Butler Bass articulate how this presents a more faithful reading of scripture and the Jesus movement of discipleship. A fresh reading of today's texts resonates with the New Reformation interpretation of "faith."
Habakkuk 1:1-4; 2:1-4
Exegetical Note
1. "Look at the proud! Their spirit is not right in them, but the righteous live by their faith." Habakkuk 2:4 is a central verse for the Reformation's theme of Justification by Faith. But recent Pauline scholars are critical of Reformation readings of Paul, including the places where Paul quotes Hab. 2:4, namely, Rom. 1:17 and Gal. 3:11. Chief among the current scholars is Douglas Campbell in his book The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul (see my review on the Amazon page), where he basically recommends that Protestants give up Justification by Faith as the heart of the Gospel. Justification has devolved into the kind of conditional gospel that Paul is arguing against in Romans and Galatians. Campbell argues that the true heart of Paul's unconditional gospel is a message of God's deliverance of creation from the powers of sin and death, such as we find in Romans 5-8.
How do these newer readings of Paul impact the translation and interpretation of Hab. 2:4 and Paul's use of them? The NRSV translation above uses third person plural, "their faith," thus presuming that "the righteous" is also plural. On pages 614ff., Campbell puts forward what he calls a messianic reading of all these verses in question: "the Righteous One, by his fidelity, will live." The crucial element here is that the Greek of the LXX and NT are all in third person singular. Also, Campbell tends to read pistis more in the sense of "fidelity" or "faithfulness" rather than simply "faith." What Habakkuk and Paul have in mind, according to Campbell, is not any righteous person but rather a specific one, the Messiah — Jesus the Messiah in Paul's case. Whether that's the best understanding of Habukkuk may be debatable. But the evidence is compelling that this is the way Paul understood and read Habakkuk.
Paul, in Campbell's reading of him, puts the full focus of salvation on Jesus the Messiah. We are rescued from the powers of sin and death by the Messiah's faithfulness to God's mission of deliverance, enduring the humilating death on the cross. Because of this, he will live. He will be raised from death and thus vindicated in his mission. "The Righteous One, by his faithfulness, will live." The Reformation reading of these verses puts the focus on our faith in Jesus, tending to make it a gospel conditioned on our faith, instead of a gospel of uncondional deliverance based on the faithfulness of the Messiah.
On the quote of Hab. 2:4 in Gal. 3:11, see J. Louis Martyn's Anchor Bible Commentary on Galatians, pp. 311ff., and Richard Hays' important monogram The Faith of Jesus Christ: The Narrative Substructure of Galatians 3:1-4:11.
Reflections and Questions
1. The most educated guess, since Habakkuk gives very few clues within the text, is that he is a contemporary of Jeremiah. It makes sense to place the opening verses (1:1-4) during the corrupt reign of King Jehoiakim (609-597 B.C.E.). Meanwhile, Nebuchadnezzar was gaining power in Babylon. Hab. 1:5-11 thus records God's first response to Habakkuk, predicting the "Chaldeans" (another name used for the Babylonians) first invasion of Judah in 597 B.C.E. Hab. Scholars then conjecture that 1:12-2:1 carries Habakkuk's second complaint, in the period after 597, that the punishment is too drastic for the crime. Treatment under the hands of the invaders is a worse injustice than the reign of Jehoiakim. God's response is conveyed in 2:2-4, including the line that St. Paul quotes in Rom. 1:17 which became a motto for the Reformation: "the righteous shall live by faith" (see the exegetical note above).
2. The back and forth between Habakkuk and God is not a typical form for prophetic texts. More typical would simply be God's pronouncements of judgment. Another prophet who engaged God in such argumentation was Habakkuk's contemporary Jeremiah. The form used is more typical of lament psalms or the book of Job. This difference in form makes a difference in the theology of divine justice: rather than presuming God's righteousness it poses it as a question or problem. To which comes God's bottom-line response of: the just live by faith.
3. Habakkuk's basic plea is put in the very general terms of "violence" (Heb. hamas), "strife," and "contention." These are good words that resonate with the most general Girardian assessments of the human condition. They describe the usual descension into cycles of sacrificial crisis in which the cultural containment fields of righteous violence used to maintain order are breaking down. The growing mimetic rivalry and accompanying resentment result in increasing strife and contention and finally violence. King Jehoiakim's reign seemed to be a time of deepening sacrificial crisis in Judah. But will the imposition of Babylonian righteous violence be acceptable to Jews? Probably not. An outsider's righteous violence looks no better, probably even worse, than their own profane violence, or Jehoiakim's corrupted versions of righteous violence. Any way you look at it, it's all violence — which is what Habakkuk seems to be complaining about. This is what tends to happen at times of sacrificial crisis: even the attempts at righteous violence appear to be unrighteous. It all looks like plain old violence.
God's answer to Habakkuk is to have faith in divine righteousness. But what will that be? How will God's righteousness finally manifest itself? In the New Testament, God's way of righteousness is presented in the cross as a way of forgiveness. With the newer Pauline scholarship, the emphasis in reading these texts is on God's faithfulness in sending a Deliverer, the Messiah. Forgiveness brings deliverance, release from our debts, release from our enslavement to the powers of sin and death.
Romans 1:17, immediately before quoting Hab. 2:4, proclaims it as a matter "through faithfulness for faithfulness." Through the faithfulness of the Messiah we are able to be faithful to God's way of forgiveness. We are able to forgive our debtors even as we have been forgiven. See more on this below with the Gospel Lesson.
4. Our cries these days in the face of the terrorist attacks is one of "Violence!" How can a just God allow such violence? And the usual human response will be some sort of righteous violence against the terrorists, with our sacred rule of Law behind it.
The question will be: how long will our righteous violence look righteous to us, before it just looks like simply more unwanted violence? We are certainly going through a lengthy time of pumping up the patriotic fervor — the kind of fervor designed to keep us seeing our righteous violence as righteous?
1. James Alison, Faith Beyond Resentment, p. 205, in ch. 9, "On Finding a Story." He has an extended quote of this passage in a very interesting section that compares gay people coming out to the apostolic witness of conversion to the Gospel. He is also arguing that such a conversion holds together repentance with a converted experience of creation. He writes of the gay experience of coming out:
The last bulwark of theological obstination against our being able to tell our story is the official view of the doctrine of creation. This is true whether in its Protestant form, dependent on a reading of Genesis which can be reduced to the famous "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve," or in its Catholic form, with talk of God's eternal law being inscribed into the natural law detectable only in reproductive creation.
Let me reduce this to two voices: first there is a voice, proclaiming with apparent pride, but underlying fragility "I am what I am" – already, if we consider it quizzically, an astounding biblical claim, for this is the very name of God, and behind the name, the realization that it is "I am who I am" who makes all things to be. Then there is what I might call the ecclesiastical voice: "You are not." Let me be clear that it is not at all the ecclesiastical prohibition of sexual acts between people of the same sex that is really problematic, but the justification for that prohibition, the deep voice which booms beneath it, claiming to be of God: "You are not. I didn't create you. I only create heterosexual people. You are a defective heterosexual. Agree to be a defect and I'll rescue you. But if you claim to be, then your very being is constructed over against me, and you are lost."
Now, I can scarcely find words to tell you how powerful that voice is, and how much and how deeply it informs the lives of even apparently self-accepting gay people. This is a voice which, within the ecclesiastical sphere, makes cowards of otherwise brave and splendid leaders. If I had the time and means to write a book, it would be one aimed at facilitating the unbinding of conscience in exactly this sphere, for it is when we get this right that we'll all be able to move on.
I know of only one story able to reach these depths, offering both to affirm "I am what I am" in its brave fragility, and to empower people to move beyond the fragility in discovering ourselves being loved into being. And that is the story of one who was quite clear that what the politico-theological establishment of his time took to be the eternal law of God tended to make God into the whisperer behind the lynch, the scatterer of the weak and frightened, the lover of sacrifice rather than mercy, one who rejoiced in breaking bruised reeds and snuffing out smoldering wicks. In the face of this, he made the astounding statement that only he knew the Father, and only the Father knew him, a claim that his "I am" was held completely and gratuitously in being by the one who calls all things into being, without any fragile grasping at being over against anything at all.
That statement, and its corollary, that the only access to the Father is through him, has as its effect an extraordinary anthropological consequence – either it was simply blasphemous, and God is the upholder of eternal and binding laws which drive us all eventually into the ground, and Jesus was a silly protester hurling abuse at the immutable, or that god is an idolatrous projection of human paternity onto God, and the real paternity of God is only discoverable by creating a new sort of fraternity with Jesus on his way into being cast out by the forces claiming to stand for the divine paternity.
It is the center of our faith that on the third day, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ revealed that Jesus was right to trust in his Father, and that He is the God who brings into being and holds in being even what is nothing, even what has been killed, such is the hugeness and vivacity of his creative power.
Let me try and stammer through this again. The only real narrative of creation we have is the narrative of the collapse of an idolatrous picture of creation linked to an order which tends to crucify, and the birth of an entirely gratuitous notion of the Creator who calls his sons and daughters into being, out of nothing, in such a way that death itself is not even the enemy of creation, since the same gratuity which brings into being, sustains in being through death. (pp. 202-04)
After quoting 2 Tim. 1:8-13, he beautifully witnesses to the experience of many gay people today in light of the apostolic witness to conversion in Jesus Christ:
What happened to Paul, and the other disciples: cowards, hypocrites, and traitors when not persecutors? They were enabled to stumble out of the old paternity into the new, following Jesus into the apparent atheism which turned out to be the hidden paternity of the Creator of all things from nothing. They must have undergone something very much like the shift from the timorous "I am what I am" which was OK when Jesus was around to shield them, to the collapse of what looked like a fragile boast in the face of the crucifixion, when it must have seemed as though the official voice of God, the "You are not!," the "Cursed is the one who hangs on a tree!" had triumphed again.
Yet all the evidence is that within a remarkably short time of this collapse, these cowards had been made brave, and were able to stand up to the trumpet bearers of the old booming tone, because their "I am what I am" had been touched by something which removed all its fragility and turned them into the sort of brave men who would rather die than not speak the truth simply. These were people who had come to know where their paternity was, to rest in one who held them in being out of nothing, and thus discovered that they could speak out of an unanswerable boldness which was not in reaction to the authorities, but simply truth coming into being. The New Testament even has a special word for this curious new form of boldness: parrhēsia. Their consciences had been unbound from the false paternity of the world, and they were able to speak as created children relaxing into discovery.
Now I think that there are already signs of this amongst us gay people. I think that there are already signs of creaturely sonship being discovered as given to us just as we are. And there is nothing any earthly power can do to take it away, just as there was nothing any earthly power could do to unbaptize Cornelius when the Spirit of God had fallen on him. The real sign that this has come upon us will be when we are not even bothered or scandalized by church authorities, angry preachers, hypocritical politicians and so on, because we are too busy doing our own thing. And our own thing, if we really have learned to inhabit the biblical story, will be to see beyond the anger and the hatred and the violence in the hearts of those we once saw as our persecutors, and over against whom we railed with similar anger, hatred and violence as we held on to our indignant and tense identities. Instead we will be learning to reach out to the brothers, hidden under the guise of hypocrites, cowards and traitors who do not yet dare to become unscandalized by the adventure of Creation. (pp. 205-06)
Exegetical Notes
1. What are the parallels to Luke 17:6?
The Lord replied, "If you had faith the size of a mustard seed, you could say to this mulberry tree, 'Be uprooted and planted in the sea,' and it would obey you."
Here are the similar sayings in the New Testament:
Matthew 17:20: He said to them, "Because of your little faith. For truly I tell you, if you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move; and nothing will be impossible for you."Matthew 21:21: Jesus answered them, "Truly I tell you, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only will you do what has been done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, 'Be lifted up and thrown into the sea,' it will be done."
Mark 11:22-23: Jesus answered them, "Have faith in God. Truly I tell you, if you say to this mountain, 'Be taken up and thrown into the sea,' and if you do not doubt in your heart, but believe that what you say will come to pass, it will be done for you."
1 Corinthians 13:2: And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.
Luke is the only one to have this general saying about faith paired with a mulberry tree. The other four instances, including the most direct parallel in Matthew 17:20, pair faith with mountains. Luke does not include the parallel with Mark's Cursing of the Fig Tree passage in Mark 11:12-14; 11:20-26, which is paralleled in Matthew 21:18-22 (without sandwiching it around the "Cleansing of the Temple" as Mark does). Luke 17:6 appears to be a Q saying since its closest parallel in Matthew 17:20 — except for the difference between "mulberry tree" and "mountain," respectively. Perhaps Luke's is more original and Matthew changed it to mountain because of the other similar sayings about faith and mountains. We cannot say with certainty.
But there is an important issue with these parallels in the light of mimetic theory. Mark 11:22-23 is the most original of the synoptic instances of this saying as a saying from Jesus. And he places it in a very important context, namely, Jesus' opposition to the Temple in Mark 11-13. Mark uses the demonstrative pronoun, "this mountain," in a context that Jesus was likely pointing to a particular mountain, Mt. Zion, the temple mount. Faith has to do, in other words, with being rid of the Temple as the source for forgiveness. From the viewpoint of mimetic theory, Jesus is saying that faith has to do with a belief in God that isn't structured around the kind of sacred violence centered in temples of sacrifice.
Matthew repeats the demonstrative pronoun "this mountain" in both his instances of the saying. Is the same opposition to the Temple in the background for Jesus' original saying, even if Matthew doesn't himself understand it as such? Does it make any sense to hear a glimmer of what might be its original context behind Luke's version? Luke has seemingly preserved the link to forgiveness in Luke 17:1-4, but the pointing to the Temple mountain is gone with the change to a mulberry tree. It makes perfect sense to me to be speaking about forgiveness as something that no longer requires faith in temple sacrifices. Has something been 'lost in translation' through Luke's editing of the original saying from Jesus — if there was an original saying from Jesus?
2. Does Luke's choice of casting a mulberry tree into the sea have Exodus 15:22-27 in mind, where Moses throws a piece of wood into bitter water making it sweet?
3. Luke 17:7-10 is effectively saying, 'You do not serve your master, helping to usher in God's Kingdom, with the expectation of being thanked.' Working for the kingdom of God should provide its own thanks. It is itself a life lived in thankfulness. This interpretation is underscored by what comes next: the story of the one out of ten lepers who returns to give thanks.
1. For Girardians, this lection skips the most interesting verses: vs. 1-4, especially Jesus' warning against making the little ones to stumble. Skandalizo is the primary term for Girardian psychology in the NT, with dozens of references. René Girard begins his recent book, I See Satan Fall Like Lightning, with a chapter named for the opening words of this passage (and its parallel in Matthew 18:7), "Scandal Must Come." For a full explication of this crucial Girardian insight, link to a page on "René Girard and the New Testament Use of skandalon."
2. James Alison, Raising Abel. He makes a reference to Luke 17:10 as the last word in his section on reputation and shame: "Heavenly reputation, glory, is given to one who doesn't really understand why she is receiving it, one who considers herself an unprofitable servant (Lk 17:10)." [p. 185]
And the passage in Luke 17, which the lectionary skips over, but for which Gil Bailie focuses all his comments about Luke 16-19, is featured in a couple places in Alison's Raising Abel: p. 126 and pp. 150-151. The latter reference comes in the context of taking a more wholistic look at Luke's eschatology [pp. 149-152]. These are worth looking up as a compliment to what Gil has to say on Luke 17:20-37.
3. Robert Hamerton-Kelly, sermon from October 7, 2001 (Woodside Village Church).
4. Sermons/blogs from a Girardian perspective by members and friends of Theology & Peace: Tom Truby, a sermon in 2013, titled "Ordinary Slaves"; a sermon in 2016, "The Power of Forgiveness"; a sermon in 2019, "Worthless Slaves"; Russ Hewett, a blog in 2016, "Enough Faith to Forgive."
5. Andrew Marr, Abbot of St. Gregory's Abbey (Three Rivers, MI) is a long-time reader and writer on Mimetic Theory and in his blog, "Imaginary Visions of True Peace," made these reflections on this passage in 2016, "Increasing Faith in Forgiveness."
6. This passage, for me, is a good example of why Gil Bailie, in his "Gospel of Luke" audio-taped lectures, chose to "sidestep" Luke 16-19 in his audio-tape lecture series on Luke. The only passages that Bailie comments on in these chapters are Luke 17:20-37 & 18:31-34. The first one is skipped over in the lectionary, beginning and ending with important verses — as comes out in Bailie's treatment below. These lectures are also now available online in clips; this portion is covered by "The Poetry of Truth," Part 111, Part 112, Part 113, Part 114.
Here is my transcription of Bailie's lecture on Luke 17:20-37 & 18:31-34.
***** Notes/transcription from Gil Bailie's audio series on Luke, tape #9 *****
The plan for the day: take an opportunity to share some things that don't seem to have anything to do with the gospel (but they do!). An introduction to the theme:1. The gospel tells us that we will come to know the truth, and the truth will set us free. Our freedom is connected to the truth. It's the only way we will have true freedom. Truth in Greek is aleitheia, which means to stop forgetting. That's why Christian conversion always involves a retrospective glance at one's sinfulness. We stop forgetting.
2. In chapter 11, we heard Jesus say, "this generation…" And we argued at the time that "this generation" doesn't refer to the people living at the time of Jesus, but rather as a reference to those who participate in this kind of cultural generative activity. ("Generative" being a morpheme of "generation" and the verb "to generate.") To that extent, it's anyone of us in history who benefits from the whole sacrificial apparatus which the Cross exposes and deconstructs. "…this generation," Jesus says in chapter 11 of Luke (11:50-51), "will be accountable for the blood of all the prophets shed since the foundation of the world, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, it will be charged against this generation." So Jesus here sees prophets in a much wider context than we usually think because he names Abel as one of the prophet. Abel was not a Jew, and he certainly wasn't a prophet, except for the fact that he was killed. He was a victim. Victims become prophets in retrospect, because when we really see them — when we see Abel the way the Bible sees Abel — then we're beginning to catch a glimpse of the truth. If we see Abel the way the Roman myth sees Remus — you see, Romulus kills Remus, and we hardly hear anymore about Remus. The Roman myth doesn't tell us that Remus was innocent and that Romulus was a murderer. But the Bible tells us that Abel was innocent and that Cain was a murderer. So the Bible sees Abel in new light. It doesn't believe the justifying myth. And therefore Abel is a prophet; that is to say, a revealer of the truth, because we see the victim. So Jesus understands prophet in a much larger way than the way we usually think of.
3. And when Jesus is approaching Jerusalem, his companions are looking on this magnificent city. They're rural people for the most part. A great Temple. They're pretty awed by it. And Jesus says, "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it!" (13:34) He sees the city in a different way. He recognizes the source of its sacrality, and that's why he's going there. Can I say that of the historical Jesus? I have no idea. But in the gospel, that's why Jesus is going there — precisely that's why it's the central location for him. Not just because the Temple is there; the Temple is simply the architectural manifestation of the sacrality. Underneath all that is precisely this: the victim.
4. There's another version in chapter 17 of this kind of x-ray vision for Jesus (17:20-37). His contemporaries are asking him about when the Kingdom is going to come … where it's going to come. He realizes that they can't possibly understand that. He says to the, 'It's happening all ready, and you can't see it.' And they say to him, "Where will it happen?" In other words, "The world's a big place. Where is the Kingdom going to break in? Just give us a clue." This is like some detective story. And Jesus says to them, "Where the corpse is, there the vultures will gather." (17:37) What are we to make of that? A lot has been made of it, but it's a pretty amazing clue, wouldn't you say? He is seeing culture. When we say "Where in the world?" "world" almost always means the cosmos, the ordered world, the cultural world, the human world. Where in the world will the Kingdom break in? "Where the corpse is, there the vultures will gather." It's totally enigmatic at one level. And on another level, it's filled with interesting innuendo. The corpse. We should be looking around for that. And the vultures. In order to find the corpse, look for the vultures. They'll be gathered around.
5. In Matthew's gospel at the crucifixion, some very important things happen: "At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. The earth shook, and the rocks were split. The tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised." (Matt 27:51-52) Suddenly, at the crucifixion, what we've learned is that these tombs can no longer keep the dead in them. Which is an incredibly apt metaphor for the truth of the victim breaking out of the myth. These saints are precisely the martyrs, the prophets. Clearly, there's a connection between this notion of prophets that we mentioned a moment ago and this reference to saints. Their tombs are open, and they're coming out. This is the beginning of the breaking in of the Kingdom. The Kingdom is not about dead bodies, corpses, and violence. The Kingdom is about the opposite of that. The Kingdom is about the God of infinite love and mercy. But the Kingdom breaks in on a sinful world at the place of the sin. That's why the Cross is what it is. If we want to look for where the Kingdom is breaking into the world, we look for where the vultures are surrounding the corpse. That's not because we have a lurid interest in these kind of things, but because the Good News always looks like bad news at first. You see? The Good News always breaks in destroying the myth which was designed to keep us from the bad news. So when the myth breaks open, the bad news which the myth was designed to ward off is right there. But on the other side of that is the Good News of our liberation. We're no longer enslaved by that whole process of fleeing from the truth. So the Kingdom breaks in — and in many ways this is part of the burden of the chapters we're skirting today — in many ways we recognize the breaking-in of the Kingdom by going to that local which Jesus pointed out, the corpse where the vultures are gathered, and watch what happens. And looking at the tombs of the Holy Ones, which here simply means those who victims of righteous violence ("prophets"), and we suddenly see the tombs are shattered and the truth is coming out. That's a measure of the breaking-in of the Kingdom. So if people today say that the world is in a hell of a fix and that there's very little sign of the Kingdom breaking-in, if we would have eyes to see, we would see that the Kingdom is breaking in. We simply are fleeing from it. The truth of it is breaking in on us and precipitating a tremendous crisis, which we are not meeting. As a result there is a tremendous chaos and bloodshed in our world. To summarize: The Kingdom or Reign of God breaks in when the bodies of the victims can no longer be hidden by the myths, shrines, and sacrificial apparatus of the sacred system. The tombs are open.
6. Today we are going to talk about these chapters in Luke in an important sense. In Luke 17 they ask Jesus when the Kingdom is coming. Jesus answers, "The kingdom of God is not coming with things that can be observed; nor will they say, 'Look, here it is!' or 'There it is!' For, in fact, the kingdom of God is among [or "in"] you." This is a phrase that biblical scholars have been mulling over for a long, long time. Does it mean 'in you' in some spiritualistic sense? Or does it mean 'among you' in some sense of ecclesiology, some sense of community? The question here is when is the Kingdom coming. Some exegetes would also put it this way: if it's responsive to when, then the Greek phrase means that it is already underway. It's already taking place. And Jesus is talking about his own mission: 'The Kingdom has already begun, and now it's going to unfold.' The main image of that unfolding is St. John's image of the Paraclete.
7. (Luke 17:22) "Then he said to the disciples, 'The days are coming when you will long to see one of the days of the Son of Man, and you will not see it.'" He's predicting here an eclipse, a long term waiting. Does that mean it's not going to be working? Because he just said that it's working now. No, it's going to be working. It's just that we/they won't be able to see it working. It's going to work, whether we see it working or not.
8. (Luke 17:23-25) "'They will say to you, 'Look there!' or 'Look here!' Do not go, do not set off in pursuit. For as the lightning flashes and lights up the sky from one side to the other, so will the Son of Man be in his day. But first he must endure much suffering and be rejected by this generation.'" This is the suffering they could not see. Check out Luke 18:31-34: "Then he took the twelve aside and said to them, 'See, we are going up to Jerusalem, and everything that is written about the Son of Man by the prophets will be accomplished. For he will be handed over to the Gentiles; and he will be mocked and insulted and spat upon. After they have flogged him, they will kill him, and on the third day he will rise again.' But they understood nothing about all these things; in fact, what he said was hidden from them, and they did not grasp what was said." This is another example of that "epistemological block" (which was discussed in previous lectures of this series). The inability to see that suffering, to see the victim undergoing the victimization, is exactly the same thing as not being able to see the Kingdom breaking in. The ability to recognize the victim is a measure of the degree to which the Kingdom is breaking in on the world. And we're experiencing the truth; we're ceasing to forget. There's a sense in which the victim is the Rorschach test, which will determine how alert and awake we are.
9. So the plan is to read some newspaper articles and to tell us about a recent exhibit at the Smithsonian Institute, and to think about it in terms of the Kingdom breaking in. The gospel is pretty astounding. It's not idealistic at all, not romanticized. When it talks about the Kingdom coming in, there are very strong ominous notes sounding. The breaking in of the Kingdom can be a very serious, grave thing. And it can be accompanied by a lot of chaos and violence, because the breaking in of the Kingdom involves the destruction of the old sacred system, the purpose of which was to avoid all that violence. And the Gospel's way of avoiding all that violence is to undergo a conversion and to change the way in which our lives of desire are experienced. So that if the Gospel comes in and destroys the old sacred system for preventing the violence, and if we haven't undergone a sufficient conversion (so that we can avoid violence in a Christian way), then the world gets very bloody.
*****End of Bailie Notes*****
1. In 2016 Brian McLaren's extraordinarily important book The Great Spiritual Migration had just come out, which elaborates three essential migrations for the Christian movement at this point in history. The first is for the Christian's experience of faith to migrate from a system of beliefs to a way of life in love. This theme is not a perfect fit for these readings, but I decided this book is so important that I'd like to try a three week series that fits each of the three migrations to the next three sets of readings. So the first result is the sermon "The Great Spiritual Migration, Part 1: From a System of Beliefs to Learning the Way of Love." (Link to Part 2, Part 3)
2. I am persuaded by the many scholars who see 17:1-4 as inextricably linked with 17:5-10. The disciples ask for an increase of faith in 17:5 because of what Jesus says about forgiveness in 17:3-4. In 2010, I at least extended the reading to begin at verse 3, including the forgiveness material. (The scandal material in verses 1-2 are too difficult unless one is going to address them in preaching.) I began by focusing on the translation of the Greek pistis as "faithfulness" instead of "faith," thus shifting the focus to relationships rather than personal belief. Then, the matter of forgiveness fits even better. The resulting sermon is titled "Grace for Our Journey: The Faithfulness of Forgiveness." (We had an Autumn theme in 2010 of "Grace for Our Journey.")
From the viewpoint of mimetic theory, the significance of "scandal" talk from Jesus makes also makes verses 1-4 crucial. When a passage begins with the inevitability of scandal, what needs to follow? Precisely talk of forgiveness and faith — especially if faith stems from a forgiveness with its source in Jesus, the Lamb of God, rather than in the sacrificial cult of the Temple. Scandal requires a release valve, which has always meant a sacrificial outlet — until, that is, faith in Christ as the end of sacrifice.
3. Luke pairs forgiveness and repentance more than any other NT writer (see Luke 3:3, 17:3-4, 24:47; Acts 2:38, 3:19, 5:31, 8:22, 26:17-20). In 17:3-4 Jesus is saying that if someone repents you must forgive them. What about the other way around? If there is no repentance, does that mean forgiveness will not be forthcoming? No forgiveness unless repentance would contradict what has become a very important theme of the Gospel that I first encountered clearly through Raymund Schwager's Jesus in the Drama of Salvation — namely, that a unique feature of Jesus' preaching was that he reversed the usual order of repentance and forgiveness. Instead of requiring repentance before forgiveness, Jesus seemed to forgive first as an act of pure grace that could then spark true repentance. (See the section in Schwager's book entitled "God's Turning toward His Enemies," especially page 38 where he says, "In his basileia message, salvation and penance seem to have exchanged places.")
Examples would seem to abound in Luke. Luke's gospel is associated with that most radical of words from the cross in which Jesus asks forgiveness for those who are executing him. The synoptic story where we first see Jesus extend forgiveness without repentance is with the story of the paralytic (Luke 5:17-26; par. Mark 2:1-12). This is also a story where we first see forgiveness paired with faith in Luke. After the friends lower him through the roof, Luke tells us, "When he saw their faith, he said, 'Friend, your sins are forgiven you.'"
Luke adds his own story in 7:36-50, of Jesus dining at Simon the Pharisee's house when he is accosted by the woman who is a known "sinner." Unless washing Jesus feet with her tears and hair counts as repentance, Jesus simply forgives her, once again offending the Pharisees, and says to the woman, "Your faith has saved you; go in peace."
In this passage, 17:1-10, we encounter the triad of repentance, forgiveness, and faith. How do they relate? I would submit that it is similar to what we have already put forth. Jesus does not change his tune about forgiving without repentance. Here, he says something challenging and offensive about forgiving no matter how many times someone repents. The fact that someone repents more than once for the same act even indicates that it isn't yet true repentance, i.e., the person hasn't yet changed his or her behavior. That's precisely why what Jesus is saying is once again offensive, this time to the disciples, not just to the Pharisees. The disciples ask for an increase in faith to be able to handle such scandalous teaching about forgiveness when there isn't true repentance.
4. I also fall into the camp of those commentators, then, who see Jesus' response in 17:6 to be about the nature of faith rather than the quantity of faith. The disciples ask Jesus to increase their faith. They think his challenging words on forgiveness demand a greater quantity of faith. Jesus' answer pokes fun at their request: "If you had faith the size of a mustard seed, you could say to this sycamore tree, 'Be uprooted and planted in the sea,' and it would obey you." In The New Interpreters' Bible, Alan Culpepper says,
The reader may expect that Jesus would warmly receive the disciples' request for more faith. Instead, his sharp answer implies that they have not really understood the nature of genuine faith…. The point is not that they need more faith; rather, they need to understand that faith enables God to work in a person's life in ways that defy ordinary human experience. (p. 322)
5. What is it about faith that 'defies ordinary human experience'? A Girardian might answer that it turns around the ordinary human experience about what orders human life. It undermines all notions of righteous violence based on holy vengeance, sometimes called "justice," and replaces it with forgiveness. Moreover, rather than focusing on murdering or expelling the victims, true faith focuses on the rehabilitation of those same victims, those 'little ones' who must not be scandalized. So it's not about the disciples having more faith. It's about understanding what faith is in the first place. Faith involves a compassion for the little ones that scandalizes our usual grasping after power. Faith is about a forgiveness to enable repentance that scandalizes our usual lust for holy vengeance.
Girardians have made efforts to name the seeing of faith in its perspective from the viewpoint of the victims of righteous violence. James Alison calls it the "intelligence of the victim" (see an explanation of "The Intelligence of the Victim"). Andrew McKenna, in Violence and Difference, calls this the "epistemological privilege of the victim," a nomenclature that Gil Bailie makes ample use of in his lecture series on "The Gospel of Luke."
6. Then how does one find such faith? By first being forgiven of being on the side of the perpetrators of righteous violence. Peter and Paul exemplify this forgiveness. Peter joins the side of Jesus' persecutors by denying him three times, yet is given the keys to the kingdom. What are the keys to the kingdom? The responsibility to forgive and retain sins. Can one whose own sins have been so graciously forgiven ever really retain sins? Paul is confronted on the way to Damascus not with unbelief — which is the modern notion about what unfaith means — but with persecution by righteous violence — "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?" The realization of sin as making victims and Jesus' gracious forgiveness of it are the beginning of faith. Faith is like the humbling experience of finding out just how infinitely we are indebted to our Lord at the same moment that we find out that we're forgiven it all. It should then almost come natural to live that way of forgiveness with others, to live as a humble servant doing one's duty. I think that's what 17:7-10 are about.
7. I might suggest that Luke 17 is parallel with Matthew 18. There are the recognized parallels: Luke 17:1-2 is parallel with Matt. 18:6-7; and Luke 17:3-4 is parallel with Matt. 18:15, 21-22. I wonder if Luke 17:7-10, and perhaps 17:11-19, is parallel with Matt. 18:23-35, the Parable of the Unforgiving Servant, at least in the sense that it plays a similar role for Luke. Luke 17:1-4 is parallel with Matt. 18:6-7, 15, 21-22. Could what follows these parallels in the two gospels also be trying to reach similar results, i.e., to show how forgiveness should follow out of a faith experience? Matthew uses a negative illustration about how a slave who was forgiven much has failed to live in that world of forgiveness with others. Luke's passage about slaves doing their usual labor is more difficult to understand, but what if we looked at it in light of Matt. 18:23-35? The master in Matthew's parable of the unforgiving servant would not thank his servant for forgiving the debt of another fellow slave. After he has been forgiven much, he should naturally and gratefully forgive others. But when the slave fails to do something that should be his duty, he is called in and punished by the master. Luke's illustration uses more common slave tasks, but is he trying to make a similar point? As forgiven servants of the master, we should naturally go about our business of living in our Lord's world of grace, sharing that grace with others without expecting thanks. In fact, we should be doing the thanking, which is what Luke's next story is about, the Samaritan leper who does return to give thanks for being made whole.
8. Another angle on Luke's version of the slave illustration is the fact that Jesus eventually does precisely what his question seems to be ruling out. In 17:7 Jesus asks, "Who among you would say to your slave who has just come in from plowing or tending sheep in the field, 'Come here at once and take your place at the table'?" The implication is that masters never serve their slaves. But on the night in which he was handed over, he serves his disciples a last supper. In Luke's Gospel, the synoptic story of the disciples arguing about who's the greatest is moved to immediately following this meal. (In Mark and Matthew it happens on the way to Jerusalem.) To which Jesus responds:
"The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those in authority over them are called benefactors. But not so with you; rather the greatest among you must become like the youngest, and the leader like one who serves. For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one at the table? But I am among you as one who serves." (Luke 22:25-27)
Phillipians 2 recites the creedal hymn of the early Christian faith that proclaims Christ as the master who serves:
Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death — even death on a cross. (Philippians 2:5-8)
It is in taking the form of the lowliest, one of these little ones, that Jesus reveals to us our sin of making victims through our righteous violence. He allows himself to be the Lamb of God who sacrifices himself to our sacrificial machinery so that he might take away the sin of the world. For the one whom we crucified is also the one whom God raised to be our Lord. He is the Risen Lord who forgives the debt of our sin, the Lord whom we now serve with thanksgiving.
Link to a sermon entitled "The Master Who Serves," which uses the connection to Luke 22:25-27 as its jumping off point, though it also moves on to strike the theme of forgiveness in the face of righteous violence.
9. In some ways, then, Luke 17:7-10 might seem the opposite of Luke 22:25-27. The former seems to counsel the service of slaves to their masters, while the latter turns that around with a master who serves. Yet one might also contrast them in this way: if the disciples serve a master who serves, then it makes the unqualified acceptance of their way of service even more important. Here's what I mean. Scandal is so inevitable among us (Luke 17:1) that we can fall into rivalry even in our serving. How often in our congregations does that happen? We work to gain status by outserving one another. We expect to be thanked and applauded. In Luke 17:7-10 Jesus is telling us that this must not happen. We don't serve in order to someday reach the status of master. Following in the way of the master who humbly serves is the way out of the scandal of rivalry. Sure enough, even after Jesus institutes the Holy Supper around his loving service, the disciples still fall into rivalry and need to be reminded again about whom they follow, the master who serves.
10. How scandalized might Americans be in 2001 (and in 2004 as terrorism remains central to the elections) to the thought of forgiving those who carried out the terrible acts of terror on Sept. 11? Yet, if as many Americans are followers of Christ as say they are followers of Christ, how can we who have been forgiven so much fail our duty to forgive others?

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
← Jim in Jamaica
Mike in Mexico →
Posted on October 6, 2015 by The Author
Joe McGhee was Scottish Marathon Champion three times; he ran in the international cross country championships three times and had many fine races on the road and over the country but will be most remembered for a race that he won in controversial circumstances – the 1954 Commonwealth Games in Vancouver when Jim Peters totally misread the conditions and collapsed before the finish after a dramatic struggle round the final lap of the track. McGhee ran in a few minutes later to win the gold but the Press almost universally homed in on the drama surrounding Jim Peters which had been captured on film and shown in cinemas round the world. It caused a tremendous furore in Scotland and there was correspondence in every daily newspaper. The correspondence was nowhere more explicit than in the 'Scots Athlete magazine and I enclose some of it below – including a two page letter from Jim Peters and an excellent article on the role of the Press by John Emmett Farrell. It is immediately below and his career at home will be dealt with on a separate page altogether in the Marathon Stars section. After the report on the race in "Scottish Athletics", the official history of the SAAA, by JW Keddie, the first article is by George Barber and was the first article to appear in the SA on the topic – a full month before the following pieces. The page then has some extracts from the SMC Minute Book and comments on a wee exchange with the SAAA. And at the bottom is a look back with extracts from an article in 'Scotland's Runner' in 1987 to give some Scottish historical perspective to the events. And finally comes the version that Joe himself gave to 'Scotland on Sunday' in August 1994 as supplied by Colin Youngson.
August 7th, 1954 was noted for two main athletic events at Vancouver – the so-called "Mile of the Century" involving Roger Bannister (Eng) and John Landy (Aus) and the marathon involving the great Jim Peters. Sixteen runners lined up at the start of the race in which Joe McGhee was the only Scot. He ran a canny race in excessive heat. Early on he tried to stay with Peters and compatriot Stan Cox but was forced to drop back. In the conditions Cox too found the going hot and dropped back at 15 miles by which time Peters was literally miles ahead setting his usual relentless pace. This however was his undoing for as he entered the Stadium about two and a half miles ahead of McGhee he was suddenly overtaken with exhaustion and staggered and lurched round the track, now one way now another, in pathetic fashion until he was pulled out a furlong from the finishing line. Meanwhile back in second place, as he thought, McGhee had fought off a challenge from the South Africans Jackie Mekler and Johannes Barnard. It was a full quarter of an hour after Peters first entered the Stadium that the little Scot came trotting on to the track to a great cheer. His victory in 2:39:36 in such difficult conditions deserves more acknowledgement than it has ever received. What is more, there is no truth in the tale that he was on the verge of giving up or indeed that he was waiting for an ambulance to pick him up when he was advised of Peters' demise and decided to carryon. In the end he simply ran the most sensible race on the day.
From '"Scottish Athletics."
"That" Marathon Race
by GS BARBER
Having had some 48 years experience of dealing with marathon runners may I join with those youthful reporters in the discussion on their 'This MUST not happen again' race. This WILL happen again so long as there are men like Jim Peters who will put out every ounce of strength to win races whether it is a marathon race or 100 yards. I have seen men far more exhausted in a 440 yards race than in marathon races, but the reason that there is an outcry about this one is that it was a major event attended by big newspaper men. My experience of marathon running is that it has always been a sort of 'unwanted baby'. Look how long it took to convince the AAA that a marathon championship was an important event, it took even longer to convince the Scottish officials to consider this.
When a race of this kind is proposed promoters usually find an empty space in their programme to allow the favoured few to finish on the track but they usually continue the other events as if the marathon race was not in being. How many times have we seen the road race from Drymen to Firhill Park messed up at the finish with officials NOT connected with the race directing men the wrong way round the track or holding up a tape at the wrong finishing place. I saw an unholy mess at the White City, London, at the finish of the British marathon championship. (The leading officials of the race came into the ground at least fifteen minutes before the leaders were due to arrive, I know because I was with them) warning those in authority that the race was approaching. Did it make any difference? Not a bit, they started a hurdle race on the track and when the runners entered no one knew what to do and the two men Squire Yarrow and Donald Robertson running together dodged and ducked in and out of the hurdles until they were dizzy. The result was that Donald Robertson was beaten by a short head in a most indescribable mix-up.
I must admit that a man at the end of 26 miles is not so bright as he was when he started, more reason that everything should – and could – be made easy for him to finish the race. The finishing point of this race is usually in a different place from that of other events and the officials for the marathon race should explain to each competitor how he enters the track, the number of laps to go and the finishing point. But when something untoward occurs all sorts of men take on the role of advisers and upset the race. It was reported in the newspapers ………………….that Mick Mays the team masseur who helped Peters on the track said "I caught him at what WE THOUGHT to be the finishing line before he had a chance to fall. Note these words 'at what we thought to be the finishing line.' I saw what happened at Vancouver in two news-reels pictures. When Peters saw an official standing in the middle of the track I am sure that he thought the white line was his goal – and just stopped. In fact he could not have run on because the person stopped him and caught him.
Jim Peters must take much of the blame himself. He has been running long enough to know to make full allowance for the conditions. The fact that he was so far ahead shows that it was an unnecessary folly to run himself out. Lets be sensible about this race. Peters can run again and forget about his unlucky break. Dorando Pietri ran some of the best races of his career after his dramatic collapse in the marathon race at the London Olympic Games in 1908 and I remember some of the papers said the same things.
How many of us have gasped at the end of a marathon race and said 'never again, this is my last race and after a bath, rest and some food are looking for entry forms for the next race. But remember – in the future when we discuss this race let us not forget (as some would have us forget) who won the race – Joe McGhee. Because almost everyone knows that Dorando Pietri collapsed at the finish of the 1908 Olympic Games but very few know who won the race. It was JJ Hayes of America, time 2 hrs 55 mins 18 secs, and the first Britisher to finish was WT Clark, Liverpool – who was 12th.
Now we have the official version of the event dealing with the English complaint that the course was too long and that they were denied access to their athletes during the race.
THE EMPIRE MARATHON
On other pages we have been pleased to publish Jim Peters' letter. It is a sincere letter which speaks for itself and on which we have no desire to comment. However in view of Jim's references to the distance and measurement of the Empire Games marathon route and because moreover of an article by Maxwell Stiles headed 'Did Jim Peters really win?' which appeared in our USA contemporary "Track and Field News" supporting a claim that the race was considerably over distance and on the question of re-measurement attacks "stubborn Vancouver officials" we feel it is only just and proper to present the views of the marathon organiser Mr Alex Frew. These appeared in a full article in the 'Vancouver Sun' for 12th August. We are reproducing here only the necessary extracts.
The introduction to the article, reprinted here, gives the explanation to Mr Frew's account. "Storm of protest stirred up over the tragic Jim Peters case in the British Empire Games marathon last Saturday hasn't subsided. Questions have been asked and accusations hurled regarding the pitiful marathon ending. In an attempt to shed more light on the case Vancouver Sun staff reporter Al Fotheringham interviewed Alex Frew chairman of the marathon committee . Here is Mr Frew's story. 'There has been so much discussion and so many inaccurate statements about Saturday's BEG marathon race I think the public should be told the true facts of the case once and for all. I was in charge of the marathon as chairman of the marathon committee and and referee and in charge of the actual running of the race. The whole thing took two or three months of laborious preparation so if anyone should know anything of the marathon, I should. Everything about the marathon was scientifically prepared and checked. It was probably the most difficult event to stage in the whole BEG. Thanks to the co-operation of the city police and the RCMP the actual running of the race came off perfectly. The course was measured five times after the English team protested that it was too long. I might point out that the Australian team which had been here ten days before the English had been over the course thoroughly and were satisfied with its length until the English protested. The first time it was measured under the supervision of Professor JF Muir head of the UBC Civil Engineering department. Also present was the city Traffic Inspector Jack Harrison who arranged for control of traffic while the course was being measured.
CUT 250 FEET OFF COURSE
After the English protest the course was re-measured on August 4th by a foot-o-meter reading. Because traffic control could not be arranged on such short notice we were not able to cut the corners as a runner would and we found the course 250 feet out. We cut 250 feet off the course – 250 feet off 26 miles 385 yards. The English measured the course by a car speedometer and I have a certificate saying that no speedometer reading can possibly be accurate. Every preparation for the race was properly carried out. There was six feeding stations along the course, one at ten miles and one every three miles after that. Every station was manned by an average of six officials so that runners would not have to stop. The exact requirements of every runner were supplied at every station. For example the list shows that Jim Peters required 'A glass of water; a sponge dipped in water not wrung out' . For a South African runner the list reads 'One apple, a glass of cold sweetened tea. Other runners were given exactly what they wanted.
"Two medical cars followed the runners to pick up stragglers. Other radio equipped official cars were ready to rush aid to any runner who was in trouble. It has been stated in the English press that English officials were not permitted on the course. This is not true. They were told they would not be allowed to accompany the runners in a car. I wanted as few cars as possible on the course for the simple reason that I wanted to keep exhaust fumes away from the runners. English officials and all other officials were told that they could station themselves at the feeding stations to keep an eye on their runners. The English did not take advantage of this opportunity which was open to all. I personally saw Scotland's coaches at five different spots around the course. There were 103 officials around the course and 40 policemen.
All runners received a map of the course showing the route outside the stadium, also a gradient map showed the grades of the hills. All runners were shown at the start of the race the exact finish line."
There you have it from the officials involved. Jim Peters had his own version of the race and the magazine printed it over the best part of two pages and it is here in full.
But it was not only Joe who got short changed in the media – Jim Peters became the butt of many a cruel joke – when I first saw the film in the cinema newsreel, there was a lot of laughter from the audience who at first didn't realise what was going on. There may have been some understanding of their reaction because it was unprepared for but there was none for the sports writers of whom the celebrated Peter Wilson wrote for the 'Daily Mirror' which was the most down market of the Press in the pre-Sun days. Many took exception to the coverage and Emmett Farrell felt obliged to record his feelings in no uncertain fashion showing that pride in Joe's achievement did not mean taking pleasure in Jim Peters' misfortune.
PETER WILSON ASHAMED
By John E Farrell
Describing Jim Peters' collapse at the end of the Vancouver marathon in the Daily Mirror Peter Wilson says "I felt Dirty and Ashamed" After reading his article I am not surprised. I too felt ashamed on his behalf. Admittedly Jim Peters' collapse in the stadium at the end of a gruelling race was unfortunate. Agreed too that a person has the right to express his own opinion. But surely that statement should be balanced and objective and not lacking in dignity.
For the benefit of readers who were fortunate enough not to read the article let me quote some excerpts from his text. Describing Peter's entrance, Wilson writes – "But he is not a figure of merry jest; he is a refugee from an insane asylum, a fugitive from a padded cell" …"He is Jim Peters 'Mr Marathon' himself but he is a frightening caricature of the man I have called Jim hundreds of times…two steps forward, then three to the side, so help me he's running backwards now ….There is more to follow – much more. This poor dumb man who only wants to win for England … but this isn't the fight game. This is nice clean amateur sport – and game Jim does get up. Mark you, he's not in very good shape now. In fact he looks pretty shop soiled – this item marked down." and now for Wilson's peroration. "… So Jim Peters – what does he remind you of, a landed fish with a gaffed jaw heaving for water and dying in the sun, a trapped and bloody fox which has gnawed his own leg off for freedom, a rabbit with infected myxomatosis beating its own brains out?"
After that description I thought Peters looked uncommonly healthy when he appeared on TV some days afterwards. It didn't seem right that he should appear in such good shape. Yes, Peter Wilson calls Peters 'Jim'. But because a man calls you by your first name he is not necessarily your friend. On the basis of that article Peter Wilson is no friend of Jim Peters, no friend of athletics, no friend of that fine instrument the English language, no friend of journalism and perhaps in the long run no friend even of the newspaper which he represents. Athletics needs and desires advertisement. But not the kind that comes from the sensation-monger lurking in the shadows. Why does not Peter Wilson confine himself to the prize ring where despite his frequent horrifying and harrowing experiences he seems more at home? Unless he can do better, he would be doing a service to athletics by leaving it severely alone.
So there you have it! Whatever the post mortems there was only one winner and Joe McGhee had the gold medal.
Maybe proudest of all the Scots were the members of the Marathon Club but there is a reflection of the times in the minor squabble with the SAAA after the victory. In the Minute of the Committee Meeting for August 1954 appears the following:
" Empire Games: The Committee formally expressed its great pleasure at Joe McGhee's victory in the marathon race and the secretary reported having sent a cable in the club's name within minutes of the news being known in this country. After some discussion it was moved by Mr Wilson, seconded by Mr Howie, that Joe be made an Honorary Life Member of the club. Mr Brooke moved, seconded by Mr Welsh, that he be presented with a plaque. These motions were carried unanimously. Members would be notified in a circular due shortly and would be asked to contribute towards the cost of the plaque, Messrs TS Cuthbert and John Wilkie to be approached regarding the plaque. " It was also agreed that he be awarded the Robertson Trophy for the victory. The SAAA was notified about the decisions and then at the following meeting this appeared in the Minute: "[The letter from the SAAA] also pointed out that there was no objection to our presenting a plaque but SAAA permission should first have been sought. Exception was taken to this … and as none present were aware of a rule on this subject, after discussion it was moved by Mr Haughie, seconded by Mr Wilson that the SAAA Secretary be requested to clarify this matter." In the Minute of the Meeting of 21st February 1955: "The reply indicated that there was no rule in the SAAA Handbook but it was an IAAF Rule Number 9 para 4 which governed the value of £12 as souvenirs or prizes. prior permission was an additional safeguard for the athlete. Various members made observations and it was agreed to let the matter rest there."
The plaque was important to the club partly because they had wanted to present the Robertson Trophy to Joe at the annual club presentation and social evening but SAAA had decreed that they would present the Trophy to the Vancouver Victor at their own function. In those circumstances the club would want to make some presentation to Joe who was a long standing SMC member and a former Committee Member. Nevertheless the whole thing is a bit different from today – eg Andrew Lemoncello's profile on his blog has his occupation as "PROFESSIONAL RUNNER"
When Jim Peters died 'The Independent' newspaper had an obituary which carried the tale about Joe stopping five times and waiting for an ambulance when he heard that Peters and Cox were out of the race. It is important that the truth is told as often as possible and as clearly as possible and the following are extracts from an article in the 'Scotlands Runner' in 1987 by Jim Wilkie.
"Peters had performed poorly in the 1952 Olympics Marathon at Helsinki but was to make amends in the summer of 1953 when he clocked the first sub 2:20 time in the Polytechnic Harriers Windsor to Chiswick marathon (2:18:40). He came close to Gordon Pirie's world record for six miles (29:07.4), won the British marathon at Cardiff and broke the course record for the Enschede marathon. When Peters then returned to Finland and gave her best runners a pasting, his fame spread to America and he was invited to compete in the Boston Marathon of 1954. The Finnish champion, Karvonen, however also got an invitation and promptly got his revenge in a punishing race which caused Peters to collapse at the end. Once recovered the Englishman began the summer of 1954 as he had that of '53. In June he was once again victorious in the Poly and on August 7th he found himself on the other side of the world in Vancouver for the British Empire Games. Stan Cox and Joe McGhee were also lined up for this race and at three miles the three men comprised the leading group. At nine miles Peters made a move, and the fact that he appeared once again to be shaping up for a 2:20 time – despite the glaring heat – was astonishing to the race observers. Cox and McGhee could not keep up but the Scot was able to capture second place and fight off the challenge of the two South Africans Meckler and Barnard. As Peters approached the stadium he was two and a half miles ahead of McGhee. When negotiating the final hill however, for reasons probably associated with developing heatstroke, he began to wobble and upon reaching the track he fell – less than 400 yards from the tape. Memories of Dorando came flooding back and for that reason no one dared to assist him. Finally in the interests of Peters life, the English masseur Mick Mayes intervened and helped by shot putter John Savidge, he got the runner to a stretcher and then to the dressing room. Savidge and some of his team mates had previously been thumping the ground in encouragement and there was also the suggestion that Mayes had mistaken the finishing line. The next runner, McGhee, did not appear for almost twenty minutes but in holding himself together and effectively running a sensible race in very difficult conditions, he richly deserved his gold medal."
And finally we have the REAL version – as written in the 'Scotland on Sunday' paper on 28th August 1994 and supplied to me by Colin Youngson. Joe's own story – closely guarded for forty years – is below.
Joe McGhee's Golden Triumph
(As printed in 'Scotland on Sunday' 28/8/94)
"The Marathon Race was timed to start at 12:30 – the hottest part of the day – and in the heat the sweat was dripping from us before we made a move. My tactics were simple. I had promised my Dad and Allan Scally, my coach, that I would run my own race and, no matter what happened, complete the course. I was competing after all against the fastest marathon runners in the world and, despite my own Scottish record, I was not reckoned among the top competitors in this race. Nevertheless I still had that little spark of ambition and privately determined to latch on to the leaders until I judged that their pace was too hot for me. I would then concentrate on finishing.
After a cautious cat and mouse start over the first mile, the race speeded up and the leading group of five – the Englishmen Jim Peters and Stan Cox, the Australians Kevin MacKay and Alan Lawrence and myself – broke away from the field. The crowds lining the closed off route round the city were most encouraging to us, but at times I seemed singled out for applause – so much so that Peters muttered a comment about the number of friends I had. I didn't waste breath replying that it was the same Falkirk family, the Liddells, who by a judicious use of side roads kept re-appearing over those opening miles. I was surprised when the pint-sized but confident MacKay dropped back so readily at three miles, and then Lawrence at four miles. When five miles were passed in a modest time of over 27 minutes, Peters remarked that it was two minutes too slow. It was certainly fast enough for me! Yet he still held back. I was running quite comfortably and at seven miles was slightly ahead of the two Englishmen. Peter had given me some idea of his plans, however, and I was not surprised when between eight and nine miles he chose his psychological moment as we were about to tackle on of the notorious long hills on the course and suddenly launched himself into a tremendous spurt. In these conditions the pace was clearly suicidal for me and, resisting the challenge, I at once dropped back. Cox, however, plainly not in the least awed by Peters' reputation, tried to hang on, determination writ large in every thrusting stride, but the race soon developed into a procession – Peters a white speck in the distance with Cox labouring vainly to prevent the gap widening. The heat was now becoming so unbearable that I couldn't even bear the irritation of my long peaked baseball cap and threw it aside at ten miles.
For the next eight miles I ran completely alone with only the white vest of Cox in the far distance to aim at – Peters had soon disappeared from view – and I grew more and more uncomfortable as the heat began to take its toll. Then the clapping and cheering of the crowd warned me of the approach of another runner. Just before 18 miles, Lawrence, the Australian, passed me smoothly and confidently, and the gap opened astonishingly quickly. I couldn't do a thing about it. This was the beginning of my personal crisis. Certainly, I felt bad, but the trouble was more psychological than physical. I simply could not visualise myself completing the eight miles still ahead. I plodded on and then with more than 19 miles gone, I saw a most cheering sight: Lawrence sitting disconsolately by the kerb. His encourahing remark spurred me on for only a short distance, however, and although I was back in bronze medal position I still could not see myself finishing.
Indeed, I ran through the 20 mile mark grimacing horribly at Willie Carmichael, the Scottish team manager. Remembering my promise to my Dad and to my coach, I was determined not to drop out, but I was hoping desperately that Willie would be merciful, take the decision for me and pull me out. His response was imply to scowl and gruffly urge me on. I swerved, half twisted to glare back at him, and found myself running into a high, jaggy hedge. The prickles and my resentment of Willie stung me into a short lived burst of speed. A mile or so later I was heartened once more by the news that Stan Cox was being taken away in an ambulance. Someone remarked that he had collapsed into a lamp post. Incredibly I was now in second place with less than five miles to go. It might just as well have been 50. My spasm of elation had evaporated, and the black pall of depression settled down again as I endured the next mile. Then at a road junction between 22 and 23 miles, I began to hear that ominous rhythmic clapping behind me: someone was obviously catching me up. I tripped on the kerb and the shock of the stumble jolted me into full awareness of the situation. I glanced back to see the two South Africans, Jackie Mekler and Johan Barnard barely 40 yards behind. Subconsciously I had been expecting them. Accustomed to ultra-long distances and to even hotter conditions and slow, canny starters, they had been reckoned the obvious threat in the closing stages if conditions had been tough – and they couldn't have been tougher!
It was at that very moment my own personal miracle occurred, demonstrating the power of the mind over the body. I suddenly realised that I was going to finish these last three miles and, with that realisation, my energies and my racing instincts came surging back. Turning the next corner I plunged into the crowd of spectators at the edge of the pavement. The loud speaker vans kept blaring "Come into the middle of the road, Joe. It's much clearer here." But hidden by spectators I was not offering myself as a target to the following pair. At the top of this hill, I knew that the route turned left for a short distance, perhaps 50 yards, before abruptly swinging right again. Bursting from the crowd I spurted flat out to reach the further corner before my pursuers rounded the first. Then I settled down into a more comfortable racing pace. I did not dare risk a glance back over the the next two and a half mile in case I should offer the slightest encouragement to the South Africans. I was determined to fight every inch for that silver medal. the thought of gold never entered my head even when, near the stadium spectators began shouting that the man ahead was looking bad. Jim Peters deceptively awkward style with his head nodding forward always gave the impression of painful effort. My main concern was how I was going t tackle the last steep hill – a one in ten gradient – that led up past the stadium to almost roof level.
I had just reached the foot and was gathering myself for the effort when the news of Peters collapse was yelled at me. My first reaction was one of complete panic. How close were the South Africans behind me? I risked a glance back. As far as the eye could see, a good three hundred years or more, there was no runner in sight. I knew then that I could not be beaten and I never felt better in any race. The hill held no terrors for me now as I faced the climb. As I turned to run down the steep ramp past the stands into the stadium, I was struck by the deathly hush. The crowd had been shocked into silence by Peters' colapse. "What is the next man going to be like?" was the question uppermost in everyone's mind. They did not even know who was coming next, so little news of the marathon had percolated back to the stadium. There below me, framed in the opening to the track stood the track suited figure of Dr Euan Douglas, the Scottish team captain. I have never seen such a look of stupefaction on anyone's face as realisation dawned and the big hammer thrower, dolphin-like, began to leap up and down waving his arms. I ran down into sheer pandemonium. I have never received such a reception. The crowd's reaction must have been one of immense relief that this runner was not in a state of collapse. My ears were literally popping with the din as I raced around the track towards the tape to become at 25 the youngest marathon winner in the history of the Games.
The victory ceremony as the Scottish flag was raised will remain an unforgettable memory. It was also a fairy tale ending for the Scottish team to win our first athletics gold just as the Games were closing. I have been attempting to answer the question of what actually did happen in this historic race. I have only indirectly touched upon the question of why such a disaster occurred to Peters at all – and to Cox for that matter. England should have won the gold and silver medals comfortably, and it is not enough to point to the weather conditions and the hilly nature of the course to explain why they did not. After all these were the same for everyone and, when you race, you are competing not only against the other runners, but the elements and the course as well. You have to adapt accordingly. I personally ran half a minute slower per mile than I was capable of. Peters obviously did not. A world record time was simply out of the question that day. The whole point of the exercise surely was to win the medal and each of us was chosen by our respective countries to do just that. I managed to do so, Peters did not. A 'glorious failure' is all very well but it does not disguise the fact that Jim Peters, the best and most experienced marathon runner in the world at the time lost because he ran an unintelligent race."
I Danced That Night till the Early Hours at the Closing Ball
ge in attempting to finish. The fact is obvious from the newsreel. Roger Bannister and I were the only athletes allowed to visit him in hospital, and I then realised how close he had come to dying. By contrast the newsreel also shows the strength of my own finish. It is when reports go on to tell what happened on the roads away from the stadium however that we move into the realms of imaginative fiction.
The essential point to remember about the Vancouver marathon is that it was taking place at the same time as the race between the two greatest milers, England's Bannister who had broken the four minute barrier the year before, and Australian John Landy who had lowered the record after that. No one was going to miss the 'Miracle Mile' and consequently few reporters or team officials bothered to accompany the marathon runners. Besides the result wass considered a foregone conclusion: Peters, the fastest man in the world was the absolute favourite. To his eternal credit Willie Carmichael, the Scottish Team Manager, was a rare exception in following the race. Most reporters simply resorted to imagination in describing events out on the course. Unfortunately most of the myths that have grown up around the race to be embroidered in subsequent re-tellings, concern my part in it. They seem to have originated in the romantic fantasy of a local reporter who described how I was lying in a ditch until an old Scots lady revived me with the exhortation that the honour of Scotland was at stake. Norris McWhirter wrote a little later "Joe McGhee, an RAF officer, having fallen five times signalled for the ambulance. While waiting for it he heard that Peters and Cox were out of the race, so up got the bold Scot and finished the course to win." The only true items in that statement are that I was an RAF officer and that I won.
The sad fact is that subsequent books and articles go on copying such second-hand, thrid-hand, fourth-hand flights of fancy. Even the AAA Centenary Handbook gets it wrong, as does Jim Peters in his own book. The ludicrous nature of such stories is obvious. Any athlete who has ever run a marathon will assure you that if you stop for even a second or two especially in the closing stages you will never get started again – even more so if you have decided to lie down. At no time did I 'collapse'. I was engaged in a very active race pulling away from the two South Africans ove the last four miles and I never knew that I was first until just outside the stadium. Moreover because Peters and Cox ended in hospital it was assumed that I could not be much better. As for my state of so-called 'exhaustion' I need only point to the Press photographs of my sprinting through the tape both feet clear of the track, and then walking across the stadium afterwards with Willie Carmichael and Euan Douglas, and then the various pictures of the closing ceremony.
The most conclusive evidence of my fitness, however, was the fact that I danced that evening till the early hours at the closing ball, and was up again at 6 am for a trip to America. I suffered no after effects, and within a few weeks I was recording faster times than ever over the shorter distances, and the following season set a new native record of 2 hours 25 minutes 50 seconds in retaining my Scottish title. Incidentally, this time, the fastest for any Briton in the 1955 season, still failed to win me a British vest – but the treatment of Scottish athletes by the British selectors in this period is another
The 1954 British Empire and Commonwealth Games marathon in Vancouver has been labelled one of the 10 greatest races of all time. The awful collapse of England's Jim Peters after he had entered the stadium is still recalled by the media with monotonous regularity. The fact that a Scottish runner won the race is sometimes also mentioned.
Joe wrote of his time in Shettleston and there is more information about Vancouver in a letter he sent to Frank Scally which you can read by clicking on the link.
Posted in The Games


As the driving force in the field of test equipment and process control solutions for optical media manufacturers, we consider knowledge as THE key to success for any high-tech company. We want your company to be even more successful and are convinced that we can transfer some of our knowledge to you. To provide companies within this industry with the most up-to-date information on CD, CD-R, DVD, DVD±R/ RW/DL and blue laser format technologies, DaTARIUS has been organizing seminars since 1993.
The DaTARIUS Technology Seminars, which take place at the DaTARIUS offices, involve speakers who are expert in fields spanning the entire area of optical disc manufacture.


text:
Tag Archives: Living History Centre
The Company-of-Foote!
Posted on Thursday 26 January 2017 by joshwilltravel
Sir Nicholas Worthington's Company-of-Foote!
This Blog is UNDER CONSTRUCTION!
Once again, the bug in wordpress' save function forced us to publish…
at The Renaissance Pleasure Faire (North)
at Black Point Forest, Novato in Marin County, California
Sir Nicholas Worthington's Company-of-Foote RPFN '83 at Black Point, Novato in Marin County, California
"Why then the world's mine oyster, which I with sword will open."
-Pistol ("The Merry Wives of Windsor" Act 2, scene ii by William Shakespeare)
Worthington's Company-of-Foote RPFN '84
This Blog is about the magical Northern Renaissance Pleasure Faire at Black Point Forest, Novato, in Marin County, California, just north of San Francisco, in the early to late 1980's, produced by The Living History Centre (LHC) and the College of Renaissance Delights).
"Eat, Drynk & Be Merry!" at the Renaissance Pleasure Faire (North)
We have written about the Renaissance Faire before. You can read the previous Blogs "Phyllis Patterson RIP She Changed My Life" and "Return to the Paramount Ranch", (and see pictures of) the old Southern Faire Site in Agoura.
"Make Ye Way! Make Ye Way!"
In 1582, journeyman monger Eric Bacon left his home in Chipping-under-Oakwood and joined Nicholas Worthington's Company-of-Foote mercenary soldiers. He went to Flanders to fight the Spanish and on his return to the Shire he faithfully served her Royal Majesty Queen Elizabeth for two more years (1583-84) as a Royal Guard and Chair Bearer during the Queen's Progress through the annual Harvest Faire. "G-d Save The Queen!"
Eric Bacon left Worthington's Company-of-Foote honorably after the 1584 Harvest Faire. He joined The Fool's Guild, became a follower of St. Stupid, and also "served" as the Lord Mayor's Fool. For several years he was often seen walking the streets and wandering throughout the Shire after dark looking for trouble. He mysteriously vanished into the Woods of Holly in 1588, never to be seen again.
CLICK ON ANY SMALL PIC TO SEE A LARGER PIC AND VIEW THE GALLERY
AND THEN CLICK AGAIN TO VIEW THE PIC AT FULL SIZE!
In Spring of 1980 we were introduced to the fun of working at the annual Renaissance Pleasure Faire in Southern California by an older high school friend. In late summer of 1981, we began "carpool" commuting each weekend from Los Angeles to Marin County to visit and work at the Northern Renaissance Pleasure Faire at Black Point, Novato in Summer (and still working at the Southern Faire in Spring) as a street actor.
In 1982, we were first hired as an hourly CREW employee by the Costume Department for a promotional fashion show at the Old Globe Theatre in West Hollywood. We worked for the CREW Costume Department and continued to perform as a street actor first with the Mongers, and then with the Company-of-Foote, at the Northern Faire until 1985 when we began working for the Security Department as well as Costumes.
When we moved to Santa Cruz for college we commuted to both the Northern and Southern Faire (and also the Dickens' Christmas Fair at the Fox Theatre in Oakland and Pier 45 in San Francisco) and we continued working for Living History Centre Security and Costume Departments until we graduated. We moved to Novato after college and worked the Northern Faire one more season in 1988, before moving back to Los Angeles to pursue a career in Hollywood. We continued to work Security at the Southern Renaissance Faire until 1994. We worked as a Walking Guard, Night Security, a Walking Lieutenant, Mobile Security (during the week on the Northern Lot in 1987), and then as Night Security and as the Front Gate Lieutenant after the Southern Faire moved from the Paramount Ranch in Agoura to Glen Helen Regional Park in Devore (San Bernadino), California in 1990.
The Red Barn & Cardiac Hill – Blackpoint Forest, Novato
Gray Barn Hill
Company-of-Foote Morning Muster and Drill at the "Front of Faire"
The Elizabethan Cottage (Before) at the "Front of Faire"
Pig's Cot (After)
The Horse Tourney
Living History! Live Interactive Street Theatre! Hundreds of Costumed Performers!
The centerpiece of the the Northern Renaissance Faire was the daily parade, the "Queen's Progress Through The Shire" to the Ben Johnson Stage for "The Queen Show" at 3pm each afternoon. Beginning at the Red Barn in the "Front of Faire", Queen Elizabeth and her retainers would be joined by the Town Criers, the ER Band, the Nobles from the Royal Court, the Scots, the Irish, the Germans and the Guild of St. Cuthbert's. Queen Elizabeth would be carried in "the Tudor Sedan" and guarded by the Company-of-Foote through the dense crowd to the stage. After the stage show, the Queen would continue with the parade to another destination within the Faire and/or return to the Red Barn staging area. On a few rare occasions we carried the Queen all the way through the Fairesite to "The End of The World" Alestand and back.
Guardshack – Black Point Forest, Novato (Dario took this pic)
This was written for the original fb photo album a few years ago:
"RPFN early 80s – I'm not sure how it happened but I blame Pugsly. I'm marching in the parking lot at Blackpoint dressed in blue and carrying a pike wheeling to the left and right. It's hot. It's dusty. How did this happen to me at the Faire? So I marched with the company '82-'84? I was a rear wheel on the Tudor Sedan for the hottest summer in history (actually two years). Rory and I both agreed that there's no better workout at the Faire than carrying the Queen from the Red Barn to the End of The World and back in 100 degree heat! For my time with the Company-of-Foote, I must admit it was a great time with great people and lots of great fun (from what I can remember). So for those who were there, THANK YOU! For those who came later or missed the party, here are some pics I collected from others. And for those who are no longer with us, you are missed and remembered by your friend and comrades in arms." – JoshWillTravel
"Murph and the Magictones" The ER Band
"Huzzah! Huzzah! The Queen!"
The Art of Burlap Over "The Serpentine" (from above)
"Long Live The Queen!"
"Well met, Good Gentles! Well met!"
"G-d Save the Queen!"
Ben Johnson Stage from Alestand 3
Alestand 3
Ben Johnson Stage
"The Golden Hind" at the Ben Johnson Stage
THE QUEEN SHOW!
("Our Shire Welcomes The Queen" on the Ben Johnson Stage at Three O'the Clock!)
Her Royal Highness Queen Elizabeth
"Parade Rest!" Hurry Up, Then Wait.
Big Shout Out To All The Water Bearers and Support People!
Nicholas Worthington & the Landsknecte (colorful German mercenary soldiers)
"End of the World" – Blackpoint Forest, Novato
Gone Too Soon! Our COF Friends who have gone on to "Sky-Faire" before us:
Auntie, Gleb Perfiloff, Charles Sanders, Thomas Willey, Robin Wadsworth RIP
Many more of our dear Friends from the Renaissance Pleasure Faire have gone on to "Sky-Faire" too soon! We remember them all and there are too many to list here!
The "Neenster" wouldn't be happy if we did a Blog about Northern Faire and didn't include this amazing picture. It was taken at Monday Brunch on the lot while we were waiting for steak & eggs (as Reggie and Michael look on).
"Neenster" RIP at Monday Brunch
And here's a group pic of the Security CREW from "way back" (1985):
Security CREW – Blackpoint Forest, Novato
Black Point is another place that is on the list of "Things That Aren't There Anymore", the land was sold and developed, and now there is another fine golf course and private community of multi-million dollar homes on the old Northern Faire Site.
"Hay-Foote, Hay-Foote!"
NOTE: FULL DISCLOSURE! None of the pictures in this Blog post are mine! (Well, okay there are a couple…) They were ripped from the interweb over the years to remind us of the past and now have been used to illustrate our story. Not all of the pics are from the 1983-84 period, again they are used with "artistic license" to visually tell the tale. They are included for educational purposes only and not for commercial gain. BIG THANKS to all the photographers, if you want credit pm me. Also, as a member of the Costume CREW, these pictures are a part of my professional resumé as well as my personal history.
Use the links below to FOLLOW and LIKE us on other social media!
RIGHT CLICK and "OPEN IN NEW WINDOW" TO VIEW LINKS>
LIKE us on Facebook> http://www.facebook.com/joshwilltravel
FOLLOW us on Twitter and Periscope> http://www.periscope.tv/joshwilltravel
RETURN TO HOMEPAGE> http://www.joshwilltravel.wordpress.com
RIGHT CLICK AND "OPEN IN NEW WINDOW" TO VIEW OUR YOUTUBE PAGE!>
The "JoshWillTravel AdventureScope" is now available on Youtube!>
(And our Periscope videos from Katch are now posted on YouTube)
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCoP3QQfRTfD-2eABWVd-JwQ
http://www.twitter.com/joshwilltravel
Posted in Los Angeles, Northern California, San Francisco, Santa Cruz, Southern California, Uncategorized, USA, West Coast	| Tagged acting, actor, actors, Black Point, Blackpoint, CA, Cali, California, Chipping-under-Oakwood, Company of Foote, County, Elizabethan, Faire, fall, guard, harvest, history, JoshWillTravel, Living History Centre, Marin, Nicholas Worthington, north, Northern California, Novato, parade, Pleasure, processions, progress, Queen Elizabeth, Ren Faire, Renaissance, Renaissance Faire, Renaissance Pleasure Faire, royal, RPFN, San Francisco, travel, Tudor, Worthington	| 8 Replies
LUXURY TRAVEL ADVISOR, TRAVEL AND LIFESTYLE WRITER/BLOGGER
Joshua Weisel
PO Box 18376, Encino, CA 91416
7 days of the week
www.facebook.com/joshwilltravel
joshwilltravel@yahoo.com
"Your Travel is Our Business!"
I hope that by sharing my journeys and experiences you will be inspired to embark on your own travel adventures. This blog is interactive, so please join in.
I welcome your questions, feedback, comments and emails.
Click below to LIKE JoshWillTravel on facebook.com
Right Click Here! Visit our facebook page!
Why you need a Professional Travel Advisor!
JOSH'S ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY HISTORY
FUN COCKTAIL RECIPES!
FUN COOKING RECIPES!
FUN COOKING RECIPES 2
FUN COCKTAIL RECIPES 2
Join us! Enter your email address to follow this blog and keep up with new posts by email.
Vintage Disney Storage Finds #9
Martin Luther King Jr Day 2020
Tuesday 2020 Thoughts..
Happy Chinese New Year 2020!
"Echoes" – Remembering Janeen
Tower Records on Sunset Blvd
Dead in the Dome 2.0!
Blog entries by region
Blog entries by region Select Category Airlines Alaska Arizona Asia Australia Canada China Colorado Croatia Cruising Czech Republic Disney East Coast Europe Florida Food and Drink Four Seasons France Germany Great Britain Hawaii Hollywood Illinois Ireland Israel Italy Kentucky Las Vegas Los Angeles Mexico Nevada New York New York and New Jersey Northern California Oregon and Washington Puerto Rico San Diego San Francisco Santa Cruz Scotland South America Southern California Texas The Big Lebowski The Caribbean Uncategorized United Kingdom USA Utah Washington D.C. West Coast Yosemite
TAKE A LITTLE TRIP WITH ME!
twitter.com/JoshWillTravel
deadandco 12-27-19 pscp.tv/w/cNbPxjFQWEVk… 3 weeks ago
RT @repjohnlewis: Our children and their children will ask us what did you do? What did you say? For some this vote may be hard. But we hav… 1 month ago
RT @NewsHour: BREAKING NEWS: The U.S. House of Representatives has voted to impeach President Donald Trump on two charges: abuse of power a… 1 month ago
RT @SethAbramson: Andrew Johnson was impeached for firing an employee. Bill Clinton was impeached for lying about oral sex. This is so f… 1 month ago
Follow @joshwilltravel
Click below to LIKE Food, Wine and Theatre in Ashland, Oregon
Click below to LIKE P&C Creative Consulting


text:
Q: Error 1045 Codeigniter MySQL Solo en un Controlador Tengo un API REST con Codeigniter pero de un momento a otro al realizar la petición a un método estoy recibiendo el error:
Error Number: 1045
Access denied for user 'user'@'localhost' (using password: YES)
Sé que las credenciales están bien porque los demás métodos y en otros controladores funcionan. Incluso antes del error tengo otra consulta que me da el resultado esperado.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange