Good morning ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to, good morning, good morning everyone. Welcome to Political Science 303 once again, right after the quiz. I know how some of you feel so we can talk about it in the break. We can chit chat about the quiz, no worries. What I want you to do, or what I want you to think about, regarding the quiz is Please consider it as a learning exercise. Okay, so so get ready for the midterm exam, which will be very similar in terms of style and structure. Okay, so there will be a little bit of choice but that you'll have to organize your ideas, take notes, do an outline and then try to jot down your ideas in a more systematic manner. All right, so that's about it, about the quiz. Again, we can gossip about it in the break but let me first let me first go over our course material this morning. We have a few latecomers so we can settle down and then we'll continue. Okay Where were we? I know you won't remember much of it because of the amnesia related to the quiz but but we've done British state and historical perspective, state tradition, critical junctures in history, then political economy of economic and social policies, you know the consensus era, well collectivist era, consensus era, then post 1970s, conservative revolution and all that, governance and policymaking, we've looked at the executive. What does the cabinet do? What does it look like? Also the Westminster model. Okay, so the typical Westminster model, the the principles of this very specific type of parliamentary democracy, okay? Then we did do an introduction to representation and participation. We I think started off with the legislature. I just want to you know do a recap of the legislature, right? I felt I rushed it a little bit, okay? So let me let me go back to where I was when I was discussing the Parliament. Sorry about this, this takes a while. Okay. The British Parliament is compulsive to houses. Therefore, it's what kind of a bicameral system, okay? Bicameral legislature, all right, which is generally found in consensus or majoritarian systems? Bicameral, yes, you're right, in the consensus systems, you're right. But that by but that consensus system, or is it the consensus system or the majoritarian model of democracy that exists more empirically prevalent worldwide? Which one of these? Is it the consensus system or is it the majoritarian system which is more prevalent, which is the dominant model in the world? Consensus, okay, that's good to remember, very good. Okay, in this system, we've got a bicameral legislature, we've got the upper house, the house of lords, and we've got the lower house. So whenever we generally, in general, whenever we refer to the Parliament, we categorically refer to the lower houses, okay, across the advanced industrialized countries, whenever we refer to the Parliament, we generally refer to, of course, the legislature itself, but the House of Commons in this context, all right. So the Parliament, the British Parliament houses two chambers, one of which is hereditary, it's a hereditary institution, the House of Lords, in that respect, I don't want to say undemocratic or non-democratic, but when we refer to parliamentary democracy, we mean the House of Commons, okay, and the legislature houses the crown two, okay. House of Commons, the lower house, has three major functions, at least in theory, okay. It passes laws, it authorizes taxation, remember the motto, no taxation without representation. From the 17th century onwards, taxation is one of the most important functions of what the Parliament does, right, and it also reviews public administration and also government policy, okay. The real functions, however, in time have been changing, in the sense that its legislative function is being overshadowed with the executives, with the cabinets overpowering the legislature. So when you look at the relationship between the legislature and the executive, yes, you would think that it is the legislature who makes, or which makes laws, but in effect, and also in time, effectively, it is the executive which really dominates the legislature in terms of, in terms of setting the legislative agenda. The Parliament does not generally, the Parliament does not generally take initiative and make, makes laws, but what happens is, it is the governments that work with the Parliament, and in time, we see the domination of the Parliament by the executive, okay. So the real function, when you look at the real function of the House of Commons in this context, it's basically giving assent to what the, what the government wishes to do because of, because of the strengthening of the executive in time. When I refer to strengthening of the executive, I also mean, I also refer to two separate, but also analytically separate, but in a way, intricately related trends. There is the strengthening of the executive vis-a-vis the Parliament, so that's one level of executives getting stronger and stronger, and secondly, we see the emergence of core executives composed of the Prime Minister's office, Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Foreign Minister, Minister of Foreign Affairs, and the Home Minister, Minister of Home Affairs, Ministry, Ministry for Home Affairs. All of these, I mean, these guys have also been dominating the executive too. They've also been dominating the cabinet too, so there is some kind of a dual process of strengthening of the executive. Once again, the executive is increasingly dominating the legislature, so the balance of power shifts increasingly in favor of the executive, and secondly, the balance of power within the cabinet, it gravitates towards the Prime Minister and the few ministers and their private advisors. So, and this also means that given the fact that in the majority of governments, I mean, an overwhelming majority of governments, we do not see coalitions. We see Labour Party or Conservative Party alternating since 1945, except for the last, I mean, except for 2010 elections, or the Parliament that was formed after 2010 election. We see a single party composing or comprising of the executive, and therefore ruling in a way or reining over the Parliament. Think of it like this. If a party gets, think of this as the legislature, if a party gets a vote of confidence, here is the cabinet. If the cabinet, which are basically, I mean, its members of which are composed of party members here, and the leader of the party is the Prime Minister, they get 52% of the votes or 52% of the seats, I'm sorry, in the Parliament. So the vote of confidence is guaranteed, and whatever they put on the agenda, we know in advance, unless there are backbenchers, which I shall be talking about later, unless we have backbenchers who dissent from the cabinet, then the bill will become law. Is that clear? Right? Because the party who forms the executive, who forms the cabinet, will automatically gain the votes, 50% plus one of the votes. So that's going to be in a way guaranteed in this kind of a system. And this happens very often, or almost always the case, in the British system. Clear? So this is one way in which in the parliamentary system, we witness domination of the Parliament by the executive. So when you look at the relationship between the executive and the legislature, it's not a balanced relationship. And this imbalance is increasing over time. Contrast that with, I'm sorry, consensus systems or consociational systems, in which there are multiple parties forming a coalition, some of which may dissent, may object to what the cabinet wishes to do. So that's a huge, that's a very important contrast between consensus systems and majoritarian systems. Clear? Okay. The upper house, which is, by the way, the House of Commons is composed of around 650 seats members. The House of Lords is about 74750 members. And they are unelected members. They are hereditary peers, the dukes, the earls, the marquee, and also barons and others. There are law lords who have been there as members of the House of Lords. There are life peers, most of which have traditionally been appointed by the prime minister himself or herself, and about 20 to 25 archbishops representing the Church of England. The House of Lords, interestingly, serves as a final court of appeal when it comes to civil cases and also when it comes to criminal cases. It is in this sense there is a kind of fusion of powers in the legislature. Remember, we talked about the Westminster model and we mentioned, I talked, I said, I really explained to you that this is a system also of fusion of powers as opposed to separation of powers. In the separation of powers model, we have the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary, all separate. Judiciary is the independent, but you see the House of Lords also acting, so serving as a final court of appeal. That's also interesting. What the House of Lords does is, in fact, revision. So the most important function of the House of Lords, the upper house, is making revisions on the letter of the legislation. We make a distinction, or jurists make a distinction between the spirit of the legislation or law and the letter of law. They don't tinker with the spirit of the law, so-called, but they clean up the text so that it really conforms to the case law. It conforms to the tradition. It conforms to the constitution. They also provide expertise in drafting legislation. They can suggest in that respect amendments to the House of Commons. Let's clean it up this way, or would you consider it that way? And what's important here is that they cannot block any legislation. They can delay the legislation, the passage of the legislation, but they do not have the right to block the legislation. They cannot say, okay, we reject what passed in the House of Commons. We don't like that, so we don't want it. They can't do that. They don't do that. So that's about it in terms of who does what. When we refer to other elements in the legislature, we have parliamentary committees which examine specific policies. They also monitor ministries, different departments, within the executive. So there is some control by the parliament over the executive. Mind you, bureaucracy is part of the executive. So in that respect, the legislature has certain functions. They're allowed, as a set of privileges, in order to buy or through monitoring, overseeing what the executive arm of the cabinet does. They can hold hearings. They can take testimony. They can question civil servants. Again, that also implies that the legislature oversees what the executive does, and they can issue reports on policies and stuff. There is also the institution of backbench dissent. Backbenchers, when you look at the British parliament, you see there are benches, okay? Here is the speaker's desk, or his microphone, and there are backbenchers generally, are those members of parliament who sit on the upper benches who do not constitute the rank and file, the higher ranking officials in the party. So members of the governing party which do not hold offices, and there are also members of the opposition. So especially rank and file members of the party, political party in opposition. This dissent, I mean, when you look at the backbenchers, they've generally been differential, respectful. But in time, this has been changing. You see in the parliament, or you hear in the parliament, a lot of noise at the background. If you watch British parliament in session, by the way, just note my parlance. Whenever I say British parliament, I refer to the lower house with the green seats, not the red seats, okay? Just I wish I could show you the British parliament in session. Just please log on to the website of the British parliament and watch how they debate issues. Anyway, generally they've been quite differential, quite respectful. But in time, this difference has been changing. 1993, I remember on an issue about the EU, backbenchers revolted against the major government. Major was the prime minister of the conservative party that was in power by then. Backbenchers voted against their own prime minister. They really weakened the conservative party in time. And therefore, and then we see Tony Blair coming to power. In 2003, I also remember instances of when Blair was the prime minister, there were backbenchers about, I think, one-third of the MPs, labor MPs, defected and voted against use of military force in Iraq. So it was such a divisive issue that there was so much backbench dissent. Even the members of the governing party voted against their own government bill, voted against government's policy. So we do not see a categoric party discipline in this case, which we see in other countries such as France. There is strong party discipline. You can also imagine that there is a high degree of party discipline in this country. But in the British case, there is in a way the institution of backbench dissent, which is part and parcel of the system. It exists. It is allowed as long as in general it is deferential. It is respected. And it overturns decisions. There have been incidents that dissent really got or dissenders really got what they wanted. They can veto what their prime minister proposed in the parliament. Then comes the party system and the political parties. So we've completed our discussion on the legislature. This is what the legislature looks like, bicameral system. And now what about the parties? So this is going to be the order of which we shall be discussing other cases. So we first in representation participation, we will look at the parliament under representation and participation. Then we'll talk about the party system and the political parties. The British system has traditionally been known as in terms of a party system, a two party system. When we look at the party systems in comparative terms, we can talk about two party systems. We can talk about dominant party systems. We can talk about multi-party systems. In two party systems, obviously, we talk about two main parties which attract a lot of attention in elections. They get generally more than 30% each, generally. And these two parties generally make up most of the seats in the parliament. In a predominant or a dominant party system in advanced industrialized countries, we see a party emerging to have won more than 50% of the seats. And there may be other parties in the system. In a multi-party system, we have many parties. There is almost always alternation. So no one, you know, no one really holds power all the time. And the seats are divided and therefore power, legislative power, is divided, is dispersed. The British system, the British party system, has always been known traditionally as a two-party system. This is what we know about Britain in general, but things have been changing. Although the system is generally or traditionally referred to as a two-party system, there have been some changes. Yes, when you look at the earlier periods, post-World War II period, there have been labor governments and conservative governments. It sounds like there is alternation all the time. But from the mid-1970s, but especially 1980s onwards, we have other parties towards the center, increasing their influence. So there is some kind of a concentration at the center or towards the center. And since the 2000s, we see the emergence of a third party, the Liberal Democratic Party, who wins consecutively high number of seats so that the system becomes more like a two-and-a-half party system. So we have two main parties, two major parties, and we have a smaller party on the side. So that's why it's called a two-and-a-half party system. Yes, this case is generally referred to or traditionally referred to as a two-party system, but it is changing. So please note this change. From 2010 onwards, we have a coalition of the Liberal Democrats, the smaller party, and one of the larger parties, conservatives, forming a government, which was the first coalition as such since 1945, which is also important to remember. But until then, we see one party dominating the parliament and then alternating the other party coming to power. And there was alternation between conservatives and labor parties. Labor Party, it was founded by unions and socialists. When you look at the basis of political power, its traditional basis of political power, mostly manual workers. When you look at the post-World War II era, in general, you would be three times likely to vote labor had you been a worker, had you been part of the working class. And two-thirds of the working class was traditionally voting labor for decades. 1970s, about mid-1970s, there has been some disillusionment with the party. And then some disillusionment, I meant some kind of disillusionment with the social democratic ideology, with the welfare state, after which we see alternation from labor to conservatives, the conservative revolution in 1979. So labor has been moderating its ideology and expanding its base, basis of political support. There have been divisions in the 1970s, which I'll talk about in a moment. And some of these divisions have been about whether to be part of the EU or not, or whether we should remain as old labor, or whether we could renew ourselves and expand our basis of political support. So these were the questions of the time. But there has been agreement, some kind of cohesion since the 1980s. The party emerged as a left of center, moderate left of center, but still a center party, or a party that really sits at the center of the political spectrum from the 1990s onwards. Blair modernized the party, it revamped the party, it modernized its appeal beyond its traditional core values, and the party emerged as new labor. So there is some kind of a reinvention or revamping of the party under Blair. So it was a process of in a way rebranding the party, late 1990s. Ed Miliband, 2010 onwards, one of the Miliband brothers, Miliband wanted to reorient the party towards its more traditional focus. Let's go back to our origins. Let's rebrand our party again or go back to our old brand of old labor. So there is some kind of a pendulum swinging back and forth between new labor, but also coming back to traditional old labor party. The second party that I'd like to talk about in Britain is the conservative party, obviously. It dates back to the 18th century, one of the longest surviving parties in Europe, in advanced industrialized countries. Its pragmatic approach, its flexibility really explains its strength and its also durability in time. It built the roots of the modern welfare state in the 19th century, late 19th century. There have been divisions, 1970s, divisions within the party over the role of the party, over Britain's role in the EU. So there have been 1980s were years, highly divisive years in terms of whether we should remain within the EU, whether we should lead the EU, whether we should in fact get rid of the EU. So Britain had an ambivalent position under Margaret Thatcher especially. She said, I remember, Britain will never, ever be part of EMU, Economic and Monitor Union.  We don't want the euro. So we want to retain our old conservative values, our own national identity and all that. So there has been much discussion. Cameron, when he became the party's chief, tried to moderate the party, tried to expand its basis of political support, revamped the party to include not only its traditional core but also new parts or other parts of the electorate. Yes, its values have also been changing. Security is very important in the eyes of Cameron and others, but at the same time, poverty became an issue, which you would think that it would be part and parcel of a traditional labor stronghold agenda. And also climate change, surprisingly. Cameron has also been advocating policies mitigating climate change. So these are, as you can see, these are policies in which the conservative party, the traditional conservative party, is changing. It wishes to expand its basis of political support. It wishes to target a group at the center of the political spectrum with the changing societies, changing political parties. So there has been a groping towards the center in both political parties. Then comes the Liberal Democrats, which have been challenging labor and conservative governments through the 1970s. Liberals and social Democrats came together. Liberals had been there since the 1970s. It was the only contender. Faction out of labor, Labor Party, joined the Liberals and they formed the Liberal Democrats, Democratic Party in 1987. And it emerged as a left of center critic of the ruling government. So when you look at the spectrum here, you see towards your right conservative party, Labor Party towards the center and also towards the left of the Labor Party, you see the Liberal Democrats. Then we see a very interesting phenomenon, United Kingdom Independence Party, which run at the EP elections, European Parliamentary elections. It's a right-wing populist party. It does have an anti-immigrant rhetoric. It proposes corporate as well as inheritance tax cuts. Obviously, independence meant highly Eurosceptic, skeptical about or of the European Union came on top within Britain in the 2014 EP elections. It actually got about just a little bit less than one third of all votes in Britain. So UKIP, United Kingdom Independence Party, does not run at the domestic level, but I wanted to show you that United Kingdom there emerged a party which runs for EP seats, European Parliamentary seats. And this was very interesting. Let me talk to you about the electoral system. Remember we talked about the fact that we observe two ideal typical electoral systems. One is the first past the post system and the other is the proportional system. Did I give an example? I must have given you an example. Yes, I did. So you know what we mean by the first past the post system or the single-member plurality system? If there are 650 seats in the British Parliament, how many districts are there in Britain? If we know that Britain is a case of single-member plurality system and we know that in the House of Commons there are 650 seats, 650 MPs, 650 districts. Clear? So Britain is divided into 650 districts and for each of these 650 seats, there is competition among the parties. Is that clear? Do we all know what I'm talking about? So Britain is divided into 650 districts and for one of these districts, I'm very good at drawing, I know, party A, party B, party C, party D, party E. These are the competitors or MP or prospective MP party or candidate A, candidate B, candidate C of party A, candidate of party B, candidate of party C and what happens here is that let's say that we have, and what have you. So who wins here? Candidate C or candidate of party C. So this guy goes to the parliament or this lady goes to the parliament. So that's why it's called the first past the post system or single-member plurality system or winner takes all system. Winner took all. One of the 650 districts goes to the parliament directly. What this system does is that these systems in general amass power to the large parties and they generally reduce the influence of small parties. How? What do you think? How? Why? Why would a system as such amass more power, give more power or give more influence to the large parties and it becomes very difficult for smaller or candidates of smaller parties to win in the elections. Anything you'd like to add? That's also important.  That means your wealth would translate into power especially in this kind of system. More seats mean confidential votes. I didn't get that. Confidence. They can win the vote of confidence. That's also true. So if you are a candidate of one of the large parties, you know that your party will be campaigning for you and you will be campaigning for the large party. It becomes quite easy or it becomes easier to campaign. Then it is likely that especially in a system as such, you will win at the end of the day or by the end of the day. The system as such really exaggerates the power, the influence of a large party because you have your party behind you. You can lean on your party. You can rely on your party. If you are a candidate of a small party, yes, there's no national threshold, so that's a plus. You can get elected because of an absence of a national threshold. You can get elected, but at the same time it becomes very difficult for you to run the campaign because you don't, I mean, voters will not get to hear about the party itself even if you are, you may be a strong candidate. So these kinds of systems which are more or less first-past-the-post systems or winner-takes-all systems or single-member plurality systems, they in general categorically increase the influence of large parties and reduce the influence of smaller parties. What happened in the elections, 1945 till 2010? We see alternation in power. What does alternation mean? What does alternate mean? Very good. So alternation means change in the party that forms the government. Clear? We'll talk about this also in France, which is also very important there. But alternation means change in the ruling party. The ruling party changes. When you look at the number of seats in the parliament, you see that it's really zigzagging. Conservatives rising at a plateau for two terms, then falling, then rising, falling, rising, rising, falling, falling, rising, rising, rising, labor top falling, rising, late 1960s, falling quite stable but falling 1970s, late 1970s and thatcher years early 1980s, then increasingly rising, Tony Blair wins a second term, then secular decline and declining throughout. So you see whomever gets the highest number of votes will form the government in a two, even in a two and a half party system. This means that there is alternation since 1945. I mean many, many, many consecutive instances of alternation. That's important to remember. We see instances of alternation as you can see. It's been up until 2010, up until 2010, we have one party itself exclusively forming the government and holding all executive power, amassing all executive power. From 2010 till 2015, we had the conservative party winning most of the votes but still its seats were not enough to form a government. I have a question here. Please, very nice. House of Lords, sure. What the house does is that it refines legislation. It cannot block legislation, that's what you need to remember. Yes, each piece of legislation is read three times in the House of Commons. It's also read three times in the House of Lords. But what the House of Lords do is that it cleans up the letter of the legislation. It doesn't tinker with the spirit of the legislation. It refines the legislation, puts it into standard language. Yes, it cannot block legislation, as I said, but what it can do is to delay the legislation. Its amendments are generally minimal. It can advise against sometimes parts of the articles and may say, may tell the House of Commons to revise and resubmit. So revise and pass and then we'll clean it up and then we'll pass it as is. So it's mostly a revision rule. Cannot block legislation. Can delay legislation? This doesn't happen very often. Any other questions? Okay. Anything about the electoral system? Do we all understand what it means when it takes all versus proportional? If this had been a proportional representation system instead of a winner takes all system, and if there would be three seats to be filled for this district, these guys, I mean, this district will be sending three MPs to fill these three seats in the parliament. Who would they be? A, B, C. But because we have single member plurality system, we have the winner takes all system or outcome. So we have the 21% candidate or the candidate who gets the highest number of votes will be going to the parliament. Okay. Electoral outcomes. May 2010 elections, which was a shock to the system. It resulted in what's called the Hang Parliament. The Conservative party obtained 306 seats, but it wasn't enough to form the government because 650 divided by 2, 325 plus 1 for absolute majority to win confidence. 326 seats are needed. And falls short of 326 seats, simple majority that is. We've got Labour almost 260 seats and Lib Dems 57 seats. Interestingly, we had the rightmost and the leftmost in the political spectrum of parties forming a coalition which makes up or made up 363 seats, which, which passed the threshold of 326. So the leftmost and the rightmost in the political spectrum of these two parties, I mean big parties, formed the coalition. The most recent election in 2015. Conservatives had 330 seats under Cameron. Labour, 230 something. Scottish National Party emerges as more than 50 seats, almost 60 seats. Liberal Democrats plunge to eight seats. So 326 seats needed for majority. 330 seats obtained by the Conservatives. Therefore Cameron formed the government. He had promised a referendum and the referendum resulted in a nay, in a no. Then he felt obliged to resign and we have a new Prime Minister. His name is Theresa May. Okay. Okay, you want the numbers? Sure. Conservatives, 330 seats. Labour, 232 seats. Scottish National Party 56. It's a regional national, well national party. Liberal Democrats, eight seats. Conservatives had a, you know, not a paper thin majority, so called, but quite a slim majority and formed, they formed the government. Then comes political culture. Massive economic dislocations. Oil induced shock, 1972, 73, 78, 79. So many, many, many economic changes. Political strife. Governments could not last. They couldn't deliver. They couldn't cater to the needs. Social dislocations, unemployment, skyrocketing. 1979, Margaret Thatcher wins the votes and she becomes the Prime Minister. First lady Prime Minister in British history, which is sometimes referred to, I mean, her doings, her ideology, her policies can be summed up as the conservative revolution that starts in Britain, then gets disseminated worldwide. I mean, right after Thatcher, then comes the power from Reagan, Republican Party candidate, 1980. Weakening of class bonds, especially after the 1970s, the turmoil, everyone was protesting against both governments, alternating governments of the time. And the national identity was increasingly complicated with or after the decolonization period, 1950s, 1960s. Immigrants coming to Britain. Race became an issue. Ethnicity became an issue. The British have always seen themselves as multicultural society. But the identity of Britishness have been increasingly questioned since the 1980s, 1990s. Protest movements include anti-GMO, anti-globalization, high fuel prices of the 1990s, and especially early 2000s, war in Iraq. This was a massive, massive movement. Millions took to the streets in London and elsewhere. I mean, there was, every weekend, there was some protests going on, especially around 2003, 2002, 2003. So many, many, many movements have been emphasizing issues, have been taking up to the streets. Protest have been increasingly visible. Anti-terror movements also came to the fore. And then all of these meant that we have an increasing level of political mobilization, political protests, taking up to the streets, increasing. So we have not like the 60s and the 70s, but a more sensitive society or sensitive social groups really protesting and also really, you know, voicing their dissent over especially government policy. War in Iraq, GMOs, globalization. So all of these were very important issues of the 1990s and 2000s. And the most recent referendum was also very interesting. Brexit before and after the vote. So for the in-class assignment, ladies and gentlemen, I'd like you to see a TED talk, which will be announced soon. And next week you will be writing the in-class assignment. Let me briefly summarize how we do the in-class assignments. We will give you three in-class assignments in total. You have the option of taking two of these. In fact, you cannot write three of them. Okay? So you'll be writing two of these. That's the nice thing. That's an upside of the in-class assignment. But there's a downside to it too. If you miss, if you don't take the first one, but fall sick and cannot write the second, you will have missed the opportunity of a makeup because of the fact, because we do not give, there's no possibility of makeups for the in-class assignments. Okay? So if I were you, I would, you know, I would try to make sure that I take that 5% credit into my pocket. So how we do it, we generally ask you to watch a documentary or a TED talk or read something about contemporary politics. And then we'll ask you a discussion question in class.  Okay? So one side of an A4 paper. And in terms of your prep, you can bring in an A4 sheet. You can take notes on it. You cannot plagiarize. You cannot copy from your friends. If I were you, I would take notes from the material that we would like you to follow. And then also blend in your lecture notes. And think about, you know, how can this guy ask a question about, or what kind of a question there will be for this assignment. So we'll do the assignment sometime next week. I'll announce it through airs, through stars. Normally I give about 24 hours for prep. This, I mean, it'll depend on the mood of the class and also on my pace this time. Okay, going back to our stuff. Current challenges. I'll cover one major challenge here in the in-class assignment. So I don't want to discuss that. I hope you'll enjoy the talk. But Northern Ireland had always been a problem. 1920s partitioning of the island of Ireland. We see or we witness Protestants and Catholics or Catholic Republicans, Republicans who wish to retain the crown and Protestants wish to secede. There's a clash among these societies, these groups. Irish Republican army gets formed and it engages in activity against the British government. It began disarming in 2001 under Blair government and in time, strengthening of radical parties in Northern Ireland, especially in 2001, we see an incident. But in 2007, there was a power sharing agreement between the UK government, the British government and the Northern Ireland parliament. So there is some devolution, devolution of power away from the central government towards Northern Ireland in particular. Independent Scotland, Scotland wish to obtain increasingly, they increasingly wish to obtain powers, especially legislative functions. But in the referendum, there was 55% of the voters said no. So they remain within the UK, so we don't have an independent Scotland by the end of the day. Constitutional reform had been on the agenda since the late 1990s, especially early 2000s. What to do with the House of Lords, what to do with the crown, the role of monarchy and hereditary institutions, and also devolution, decentralization, power devolving from the centre to Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. So what to do with it? Shall we constitutionalize it? Shall we change our legal structure? That was one of the issues that made it to the top of the agenda in the 2000s, especially limits of multiculturalism. The bomb attacks, 7-7, July 2007. Minorities parliamentary representation has always been weak, restrictive immigration law, increased scrutiny of Muslims. This led Britons to question their identity. We had the idea of British multiculturalism. Is it a myth? Is it a reality? So what do we make of British multiculturalism? So these were making to the headlines in the 2000s and we still see its repercussions also in the Brexit issue, as you shall be seeing or you shall be watching, which also brings us to the existentialist so-called issue, Britain's status, Britain's role in the EU. This issue emerged as a new cleavage as UKIP became a major player, not only in the EU, but also domestically, and this process led to the Brexit vote. But 48 points, something said no to Brexit. 51 points, something said leave. 48 points, something said remain. 51 points something and 48 points something. So can we govern by referenda? If half of the country wishes something, what about the rest? So that becomes an issue in understanding not only contemporary British politics, but also democracy as majoritarianism. Remember we talked about Leipart's models, majoritarian versus consensus or consociational forms or models of democracy? Can we rule or do we rule by majoritarianism and is that necessarily democratic? Or do we understand democracy as majoritarianism, as was the case in the Brexit vote? Is that democracy? So these are the questions that make it to the top agenda in the most recent period. This concludes my discussion on the case study on Britain. Mind you, whenever we talk about, whenever we discuss a case like Britain as we shall be doing the case of France, I really wish you, I really wish, I really want you to think about other cases and compare these cases across different countries, different sectors, different types of policymaking, different organizations of state, different representation and participation modes. So whenever you're working on this case, keep all those at the back of your mind and try to compare as much as you can. Any questions? What I want you to do by the end or throughout this course is that you compare what you learn from this case with what you will be learning or what you have learned for other cases. So keep what democracy means, what are the forms and models of democracy at the back of your mind? And this kind of electoral system produces what kind of outcomes. What other types of electoral systems would produce what kind of outcomes? What does this mean for inequality? What does this mean for power sharing? Not only in Britain, but also for other countries. So that's what I want to do in this course. So that you educate yourself or we educate ourselves, we can compare our societies with other societies and arrive at intelligent and discriminating judgments about the world around us. Okay, I'll see you next week because the Friday's lecture is canceled because of the Republic holiday. Thank you very much. See you next time.


The IPCC is the world's most authoritative voice when it comes to climate change science and it's just released a new report into 1.5 degrees of warming and it's a really big deal. The report shows us exactly what's at stake. The difference between 1.5 degrees and 2 degrees of warming is really significant. We've already seen the damage that one degree can do. The impacts get exponentially worse and every fraction of a degree is going to matter. 2. This report lends even more legitimacy to our demand to keep fossil fuels in the ground. The science is really clear. Any hope of a safe climate hinges on stopping fossil fuel expansion immediately and given what the science is telling us, any support for the fossil fuel industry is completely morally and scientifically indefensible. 3. This is probably the most important one. It's created a rare moment where the world is talking about climate change. We know that these opportunities don't come along very often and if there's one thing that this report tells us, it's that we can't afford to miss opportunities. The science just couldn't be clearer.


The largest study in history on the health effects of being overweight, analyzing data from more than 50 million people from nearly 200 countries, found that excess body weight accounts for the premature deaths of about 4 million people every year. Most of these deaths are from heart disease, but the researchers found convincing or probable evidence linking obesity to 20 different disorders, a variable alphabet soup of potential health concerns. In the ABCs of health consequences, A is for arthritis. Obesity can make rheumatoid arthritis worse and increase the risk of another inflammatory joint disease, the so-called disease of kings gout. The most common joint disease in the world, though, is osteoarthritis, and obesity may be the main modifiable risk fact. Osteoarthritis develops when the cushioning cartilage lining of joints breaks down faster than your body can build it back up. The knees are the most commonly affected, leading to the assumption that the relation to obesity was simply the excess wear and tear from the added load on the joints. But non-weight-bearing joints like the hands and the wrist can also be affected, suggest the link isn't purely mechanical. Obesity-related dyslipidemia may be playing a role with elevations.  Osteoarthritis suffers not only have higher cholesterol levels in the blood, they have higher cholesterol levels within their joints, both in aspirated joint fluid and in the cartilage itself. Drip cholesterol on human cartilage in a petri dish and you can worsen the inflammatory degeneration, helping to explain why the higher people's cholesterol, the worse their disease. Cholesterol lowering statin drugs may both self-prevent and treat osteoarthritis as can a cholesterol lowering diet. Healthy enough plant-based diet may offer the best of both worlds, dropping cholesterol as much as a starting dose of a statin drug within a single week and only has good side effects, such as lowering blood pressure and facilitating weight loss. Even just losing about a pound a year over the span of a decade may decrease the odds of developing osteoarthritis by more than 50%. Weight reduction may even obviate the need for knee replacement surgery. Obese arthritis suffers randomized to lose weight, improve their knee function as much as those going through surgery within just eight weeks. The researchers conclude that losing 20 pounds of fat might be regarded as an alternative to knee replacement.   Given the extreme popularity of this operation, about 700,000 a year in the US, an orthopedic's journal editor suggested that people considering this operation are inadequately attuned to the possibility it may kill them. Arguably the single most salient fact to share with a patient considering the operation. An orthopedic surgeon responded questioning whether patients should be told about the chance the operation may kill them. Quote, To me, the real question is whether this knowledge will help the patient. Will it add to the anxiety of the already anxious patient? Perhaps to the point of denying that patient a helpful operation or will this knowledge motivate a less handicapped patient to stick to a diet and physical activity regime? Ultimately then, the question boils down to this surgeon's judgment. Even among the vast majority who survive the surgery, approximately 1 in 5 knee replacement patients describe being unsatisfied with the outcome. A weight loss with a healthy diet on the other hand may offer a nonsurgical alternative that instead treats the cause and offers only beneficial side effects.


If you've opened your Bibles, we're in chapter 20. We're gonna look at verses 39 through 47, and we're gonna look at questions and Jesus' answers to those questions here in this particular portion of scripture. And so let's begin reading together here in chapter 20 at verse 39. I'll read to verse 44 and we'll get into our study questions and answers. Luke writes, then some of the scribes answered and said, you have spoken well. But after that they dared not question him anymore. And he said to them, how can they say that the Christ is the son of David? Now David himself said in the book of Psalms, the Lord said to my Lord, sit at my right hand till I make your enemies your footstool. Therefore David calls him Lord. How is he then his son? Questions and answers. Now you see as we enter into our study tonight, we know that Lord Jesus Christ has had questions that have been posed to him. And we've seen that in chapter 20 in verses 19 through 26 here in chapter 20. We saw that he had been approached and a question had been asked of him concerning paying taxes. And then in verses 27 through 38, he had handled a question that related to the resurrection from the dead. And so as Jesus has been having questions asked of him he's about to ask a question himself. Now what is taking place in the response that Jesus is giving is his opponents are actually being put into position of becoming silent before him. In verse 40 it says after that they dared not question him anymore. And so they begin to become silent before him. They don't want to ask him any more questions and they're beginning to withdraw from him. Now the question has to be asked and that Jesus has answered their questions that they've asked and all and it's caused them to be silent. The question has to be asked, did they wise up? Did they awaken to the reality of the fact that he's much beyond them? And the answer to that question is no because when you see this particular question that Jesus is about to pose, you actually see it recorded in not only the Gospel of Luke but you also see it recorded in Mark's Gospel as well as Matthew. And so Matthew gives us some added insight into what takes place as Jesus has answered the questions that have been asked at him because in Matthew chapter 22 verse 41 it says the Pharisees were gathered together and then Jesus asked them. In other words, at this point Jesus is about to go on the offensive. He is now gonna ask a question and he's gonna turn the tables on those who are interrogating him. You see these people are now huddled together, they're off to the side, undoubtedly considering what they're about to do next and so Jesus actually begins at this point to confront them. And the reason that Jesus is going to confront them very simply put is because they have to come to a decision, they have to answer a question themselves. They need to come to a question concerning him and it's the most important question that any human being really has to ask of themselves and that is, is Jesus Christ the Messiah or is he not? Is Jesus Christ Messiah or is he somebody else? There are those and you know people like this, perhaps you were like this prior to coming to Christ. There are those who would say, well yeah, I believe there was a Jesus but you really don't know much about him. As a matter of fact, I'm in search of the historical Jesus. I really don't know much about him. Don't believe that the Bible actually is a document that I can trust in all. I do believe that there was one named Jesus at one point but don't know much about him. Others would say, well I do believe that there was one named Jesus and he was a prophet and others would say, well I do believe that there was one named Jesus of Nazareth and he was a miracle worker and there are others who would say, well I do believe that there was one called Jesus Christ. He was a great teacher and somebody else might say, well yes, there was somebody named Jesus Christ and indeed he was a miracle working person. I mean they can have a tremendous amount of opinions concerning him but Jesus is now asking the question just who is he? This isn't the first time he asked this kind of question. Question like this is recorded in the Gospel of Matthew when he asks the question, who do men say that I the Son of Man am? And so he wants to know people's response. He wants to know what they think concerning him and you know the response that took place there in Matthew chapter 16 when he asked that question, who do men say that I the Son of Man am? Some say that you're John, some say that you're Elijah, some say that you're Jeremiah or one of the prophets is the response. Yeah, people are speaking about you and yes indeed we have heard their opinions. These are some of the things that we've heard said about you and that's why Jesus would say but who do you say that I am? This is a similar kind of question. It's a question that really is intended to draw from those who are interrogating him a response from them. They need to be able to say who he really is and that's why Jesus asked this question. Jesus confronts them. This is a question they have to answer for themselves. This is a question that they need to come to some kind of conclusion about is he Messiah or is he not? Notice how he says here in verse 41, he says to them, how can they say that the Christ is the Son of David? David himself said in the book of Psalms, the Lord said to my Lord, sit at my right hand till I make your enemies your footstool. Therefore David calls him Lord, how is he then his son? And so Jesus is asking a question concerning Jesus Christ, is he the Son of David or really is he Messiah? How is it that the scribes are saying that the Christ is the Son of David? You see, they knew that Messiah would be from King David's lineage. They knew that because the Bible had made it very clear. If you take notes in 2 Samuel in chapter seven verses 12 and 13, the Bible says when your days are over and you rest with your fathers, and this was spoken to King David, I will raise up your seed to succeed you who will come from your own body and I will establish his kingdom. He is the one who will build a house for my name and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. So David had been promised one who would rule forever from his lineage, from his seed. The Psalmist in Psalm 89 verses three and four says, you said, I have made a covenant with my chosen one. I have sworn to David, my servant. I will establish your line forever and make your throne firm through all generations. So they knew Messiah would be from King David's lineage. They knew that. They also knew that Jesus was referred to as Son of David. It happened often in his ministry. One example is found in Mark chapter 10 verses 46 and 47. It says they came to Jericho as he went out of Jericho with his disciples in a great multitude, blind Bartimaeus, the son of Timaeus, sat by the road begging. And when he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began to cry out and say, Jesus, son of David, have mercy on me. When he referred to Jesus Christ as son of David, he was calling him Messiah. And so one, David had a promise given in second Samuel chapter seven verses 12 and 13 that he would have a descendant who would rule forever. And that was, according to the psalmist, it would be the Messiah. Jesus himself is referred to as Son of David, which is a title of Messiah. So he's having them answer a simple question. Is he the son of David? He's saying to them, am I Messiah? That's what this question is all about. He's actually putting them in the position of having to answer for themselves just who Jesus Christ is. And it's a question we have to answer for ourselves too, isn't it? It's a question I had to answer for myself.  Is he or is he not the one whom God is sent to be savior of the world? Is he the anointed one of God? In the Hebrew, Yeshua HaMashiach, which means the anointed one. Jesus is the anointed one. Jehovah is salvation, the anointed one. Is he or is he not the one who is the Messiah, the anointed one? And that's the question that is being asked. So it points out, your own theologians are saying that Messiah is David's son. You see, when you cross-reference this with Mark chapter 12, verse 35, Jesus is saying, how is it then that your scribes say? So when he speaks of the scribes, the scribes are the religious theologians. So the experts in the Bible at that time, and he's saying, your religious experts, your theologians have declared that Messiah would come from the lineage of David, therefore, your Messiah is called the son of David. And seeing that they say Messiah is David's son, they need to ask the question concerning you. What do you think about me? You see, in verse 42, he says, David himself said in the book of Psalms, the Lord said to my Lord, sit at my right hand till I make your enemies your footstool. I want you to notice something here in your English translations. In verse 42, notice how it says, the Lord, L-O-R-D in capital letters, that speaks of Jehovah God. The Lord said to my Lord, L-O-R-D small letters is referring to Messiah in this particular context. Jehovah God said to my Messiah, this is what he's saying, sit at my right hand till I make your enemies your footstool. You'll see this in just a moment. But he's saying, David the Psalmist, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, calls Messiah his Lord. So, if Messiah is simply a man, why does David declare him to be his Lord? The Lord Jehovah said to my Lord, sit at my right hand is what he says. And so when he says, sit at my right hand, well, the right hand refers to a position that is co-equal in rank and authority. In Mark chapter 14, verses 61 through 64, it says that the high priest, well, speaking to Jesus, asked him, saying to him, are you the Christ, the son of the blessed? Jesus said, I am, and you will see the son of man sitting at the right hand of the power and coming with the clouds of heaven. Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, what further need do we have of witnesses? You have heard the blasphemy, what do you think? And they all condemned him to be deserving of death. You've heard the blasphemy, what blasphemy? That I'll be seated at the right hand of God. And so they considered that to be blasphemous. And so when David is speaking here concerning Messiah and is calling the Messiah his Lord, it's something that Jesus is pointing to because in essence he's saying that he is the Lord, he is the Messiah, he is the Lord of David because he is the one who's been sent by God. That's the point he's making. Now notice in verse 43 how he says, till I make your enemies your footstools. In other words, the enemies of Messiah will be vanquished. All who reject Jesus Christ will lie helpless before him. Jesus is going to completely and forever triumph over those who reject him, including the ones that he is speaking to at that moment. The psalmist said something interesting in Psalm 2. In Psalm 2 verses 1 through 4, the question is asked why do the nations rage when the people plot a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves and the rulers take counsel together against the Lord and against his anointed saying, let us break their bonds in pieces and cast away their cords from us. He who sits in the heavens shall laugh, the Lord shall hold them in derision. So the psalmist concludes in Psalm 2 verses 11 and 12 by simply saying, serve the Lord with fear, rejoice with trembling, kiss the sun, lest he be angry and you perish in the way when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all those who put their trust in him. And so it's very simply put, you either receive him now and worship him now voluntarily or ultimately you worship him because you will be made to do so. I do so voluntarily. You see when the Lord through his word broke into my life by the gospel of Jesus Christ and I opened my heart to him, I now bow my knee voluntarily before the Lord and I do worship him as one of his, I'm his child in all. But ultimately every knee will bow and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father. And so that's the point he's making here. He's saying, listen, David refers to Messiah as his Lord. I wanna ask you whether or not you regard me as being your Lord. If you regard me as being your Lord, you'll be saved. But if you don't, then ultimately you're gonna be dealt with. And so that's what he goes on to say when he says in verse 44, therefore David calls him Lord. How is he then his son? In other words, Messiah is more than merely a physical descendant of David. Messiah is the Lord, the Son of God. The one vanquishing all enemies. And all he's saying here now is whoever rejects me rejects David's Lord. Now Mark tells us their response. It's found in Mark 12, 38. And it simply says this, the common people heard him gladly. They actually appreciated the things that he was saying. Interestingly enough, it's the ordinary people who most often respond to the teachings of Jesus Christ. It's the average people who do so. You know, in 1 Corinthians chapter one verses 26 through 29, now Paul said this. He said, you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble are called. But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise. God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty. And the base things of the world and the things which are despised, God has chosen. And the things which are not to bring to nothing the things that are. That no flesh should glory in his presence. It's the average person who has a tendency of hearing the gospel and saying, that speaks to me and I really need Jesus Christ. The intellectuals, the wise, the mighty, those who have the advantages that people strive for have a tendency of replacing faith in God with faith in their own efforts. And they instead of trusting in the Lord, they trust in their own wealth. For them, money answers all things. And so that's how it works. But the average person, person who's saying, you know what, I can see life the way it really is, is open to hearing what Jesus can do in their life. That's how it was with me and I'm sure that's how it was with you. Just an ordinary person, somebody speaks to me and says to me something about the Lord and I have a curiosity because I see that there's been some transformations taking place in their life. And so I say, well, let me ask you, how things happen in you? How did things begin to change in you? And they say simply something like this. They say, well, you know what? I asked Christ to come into my life. I asked him to forgive me of my sins. I knew that I needed to get right with God and I prayed and I said, God, forgive me a sinner. And the Bible says that I can become the temple of the spirit of God and that God's spirit will dwell within me. And I gave up on religion and I opened my heart to Christ and I said, God, would you please do something? If there's anything you can do, please do it now. And the Lord entered in and transformed me and it's that simple. And I heard that testimony. I had friends who were getting saved and I got saved in the midst of a large revival that was taking place and when that happened, I can tell you now that what happened to them happened to me and it came not because I was an intellect, not because I had a lot of money, because I was neither. I didn't have anything other than a need and Jesus Christ met that need. But unfortunately, sometimes people don't see that and they get caught up with other things. And in this case, he's simply saying this, he's saying, listen, either you can receive me as your Lord or you're ultimately gonna have me as your judge. So what's it going to be? Am I Messiah or am I not? Question asked by the Lord Jesus Christ and the common people listened and heard him gladly. Now as this is taking place in verse 45, then in the hearing of all the people, he said to his disciples, beware of the scribes who desire to go around in long robes, love greetings in the marketplaces, the best seats in the synagogues and the best places at feasts who devour widow's houses and for a pretense, make long prayers. These will receive greater condemnation. How interesting that the Lord Jesus Christ in front of everybody begins to speak concerning the religious leadership of Israel. I want you to see this and this might give you some insight into the Lord Jesus Christ. He actually does this in front of the people that he's warning these people about.  The scribes are there and Jesus turns and begins to speak to the people and he says, I wanna warn you, watch out for these people. So what he's doing is he's actually moving from their teaching to their practice. And as he does so, he gives a warning and notice what he begins to do because he lists various things that reveal ungodliness and he begins by illustrating how these religious leaders try to garner praise for themselves. Notice what he says. He says, they desire to go around in long robes. False teachers desire attention from people, not honor from God. All the religious fervor is on the outside not originating on the inside. It's easy to beautify the exterior to some degree. Some are more successful than others, let's face it, but it's easy to work on the outside. That isn't that difficult. But what God wants to do is he wants to work on the inside. I was watching something on TV the other day. It was about some guy who had gone overboard using steroids because he was a power lifter in Holland. And I watched about 10 minutes or so of it and then changed it as I normally do. How many of those guys you'd hate to watch TV with? I just keep changing. But I watched this for a few minutes and as I was watching it, I thought it was interesting because they began to interview, it was kind of like a documentary. They were interviewing a former champion bodybuilder and the guy is older now. He was some champion back in 1972 and I don't remember his title, whatever it was. It was one of those marvelous titles that really reveal how humble they are like Mr. Universe or all world or whatever. I mean Mr. Earth, I don't know. But this guy had some enormous title and they showed pictures of him. He weighed 220 pounds at that time and he was very well cut and they showed pictures of him and they asked him a question. I thought this was interesting. They asked him a question because he being as powerful as he was, how'd you get there? And he says, I use steroids. And so he started talking about steroids. Now this was back in 1972 and he says I was using steroids. He said and the thing about steroids is this. And he begins to discuss it. He said it actually led to various things including cardiac arrest, you know, a stroke. And he begins to speak concerning this. But what I found was really interesting was this. He said when I began to inject myself or began to use steroids, he said the exterior, my exterior continued to grow. He says I was, by looking at me, this man had become a world champion. He says by looking at me on the outside, he said everything looked healthy. He said, but I was rotting on the inside. My body on the inside was rotting. But on the outside, I looked perfectly healthy. And that's a great picture of people. We can look good on the outside. We can have that appearance of having everything together, can't we? You can have friends or absolutely convinced that you have got it all together because you have self-control. You're able to just hold yourself together under all kinds of circumstances. And they look at you and they will definitely say, if anybody's got it together, you do.  You can have that exterior, even a religious exterior, perhaps before you actually came face to face with Christ and got saved. You may have been that person that people would have said, I already thought you were a Christian. I didn't know you had a need. My dad, when I got saved, my dad got saved about three weeks, two or three weeks after I did. And I never really asked him too much about that. And years later, many years later, my dad was talking to me and he said, David, he said, let me tell you something about when I got saved. And I've told you the story of how that I had shared with my dad and my mom and how they had come to Christ and all, but I never really had asked him his perspective and it was this, he said this to me. He said, when you got saved, when you became a Christian, he said, I knew you needed something. He says, because you were messed up. He said, so I knew you needed something. He said, but what really pushed me over was your sister Madeline. I have a sister Madeline who's four years younger than me. I was 20 when I got saved. She was 16. My sister Madeline was one of the classic good girls. And she's just a great gal. She was a good girl. I mean, she married her first boyfriend. She wasn't wild. She wasn't crazy. She wasn't into partying. She wasn't into anything. She was a girl in high school who would actually not be asking to go out. She'd stay home. I can still remember putting curlers in her hair in this little pink robe and she'd have some popcorn and she would sit between my dad and my mom and watch TV eating popcorn with him on a Friday night. Now, how many 16-year-olds do that? I mean, aren't they begging for the car keys?  You know, not Madeline. Madeline was nothing like that. She was just a classic great little girl.  But when Madeline got saved, because he said, look, I knew I was better than you. He said, but, he says, but I was not better than your sister because your sister was good. And so he said, I figured, look, I'm better than him but I'm not better than her. So if she needs Jesus Christ, I must need him too. And that's kinda how it works. You know, you can have that outer appearance. You can have that classic good person and people trust you. They know that you're honest.  But there's an empty nine inside of you, is a rot that's inside and it's sin and you know it. And you know you're not altogether. You know there's an emptiness in you even if other people don't see it. They can look at your outside and they can say, you look like you've got it altogether but on the inside, you don't. But when you looked at the scribes, these were the people who wore their religion on the outside. They wore the long robes because those were indicator that they were very religious people. That actually was drawing attention because long flowing robes were normally worn at that time by either royalty or priests. And so when they would be wearing these robes, they were drawing attention to themselves by their garments. So Jesus would make it very clear that it's not the exterior at all. And yet we do have a clothing. There is something we are to be clothed with. Of course it's righteousness but in Colossians chapter three verse 12, Paul said as God's chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. Instead of having an exterior kind of look and there are quite a number of people who on the outside look pretty good. He says these qualities, this patience, this holiness, this righteousness, this godliness, these things, that's really what you should be clothed with. A second thing about these people that Jesus is pointing out is that they loved greetings in the marketplaces. In other words, they wanted public recognition of their prominence. They were people who liked to be admired and they liked the attention that they would receive. In Matthew 23 verse seven, Jesus said it like this. He said they love greetings in the marketplaces and to be called by men rabbi rabbi. They liked it, they liked having that attention. They liked being known. They wanted people to know who they were. In ministry, it's one of the temptations that a person can have, especially if they were a person who when they were young, nobody noticed and now that they become a pastor or serve somewhere and get to be well known, the attention can go to their head. There's no doubt about that. It can go right to your head because people actually know who you are. I have the weirdest things happen. It happens all the time. People may not know me by face. As a matter of fact, a lot of people don't. They know me by the radio. And there have been times, many times that I've gone out of state to do radio rallies. They've never seen me. It's not like there are pictures of David Rosales all over. And so I'll go out there into other states and I've done this in Illinois. I've done it in New York. I've done it in various places when I've gone to do radio rallies and I'll walk out and I can actually walk around the groups of people that are there. They don't know who I am.  I mean, that is the number one thing. So I normally stand up there and I'll say this. I'll say, okay, I don't look like you thought, right? Because my last name is, I'm a Mexican, my last name. So they're expecting something, you know? So I say, okay, so I don't look what you think I look like, right? And they always do the same thing. I'll say, okay, you thought that I was gonna be black hair, right? And you thought I was gonna have a black mustache, right? Darker complexion, right?   Yeah. And you also thought that I was gonna be very ugly. I said, you haven't, I say, and I do this all the time. I say, you've got me mixed up with Rawl, you know? And I do it all the time, you know? It's quite fun. Rawl's not there, he doesn't know.  And so, you know, I tease with them and share with them. But the thing is, is sometimes people do want to have that attention, they do. They want to be known. They long to be known. I don't know if I should say this. It'll probably come off wrong when somebody may misunderstand. But at the same time, I'll say it anyway because I don't care. It's true. I have opportunities now. Forgive me if it sounds self-serving. It's an illustration. I have opportunities now. I speak at national conferences. I speak at the National Pastors Conference and things like that. But for a long time, I didn't. There are hundreds of pastors in all. And so, you know, I would sit at the table with people and they knew me through radio ministry and all, but they didn't know me face-to-face. Now it's a little bit different.  You have to put it on a lanyard around your neck and that's how you get in and out of meetings and that's how you get your meals and things. So you have to have your name badge, but I'm not into name badges. I never have been. I don't like them. I don't like them. And so, I remember walking in one time and I didn't have my name badge on. And one of the guys standing at the door says to me, Pastor David, you don't have your name badge on. I said, your name tag. I said, no. He said, you need to put on your badge. And I said, I don't need those stinky badges, you know? And he says, yes you do. Put on your badge, you know? Because I prefer the anonymity, to be honest with you. I prefer the ability to just sit down and visit as one of the guys. I like that. I like that in my church. I like that when, you know, I'll say it again because you know, I'll see somebody this week. Somebody will come up and, because it happens all the time. I'll be at the restaurant, at a restaurant, you happen just this money. It happens all the time. And people will walk up and say, hi, Pastor, how are you? And I may not know them, but they say, you don't know me, but I know you. I go to your church, you know? And I said, well, that's wonderful. I'll give you my bill in a minute. If you'd like to pay it, praise God, you know? I'll pray for you when I go home. You know, I, you know, I like coming into contact with and speaking to and sharing with people in our fellowship. But I like to do that. And other people, obviously, I like to do that as one of them, not as being anything more than them. That's what Jesus is talking about here. What he's talking about is these people like the attention. And some people do. They like the greetings. They like the titles. But a genuine believer does not seek out special attention or special titles. Paul in 1 Corinthians chapter four, verse one, speaking of himself and Apollo said, let a man so consider us as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. That's what we are. We're servants and stewards. He goes on to say they love the best seats in the synagogues. Now, when it says the best seats in the synagogues, those were the seats in the front. And it was in front of the raised platform. It's where prayers and readings would occur. And so when they were up there in the front, naturally it got attention from the congregation as they were ushered in, and then they'd be seated facing the people. And so they liked that. Again, a genuine believer doesn't seek personal glory from special attention. In John chapter three, verse 30, John the Baptist said something that I think is amazingly important. Speaking of Jesus, he must increase, I must decrease. It's always better to simply serve the Lord without desire for any special notice from other people. It's always better because from the Lord you receive your reward. He goes on to say they love the best places at the feast. They like the most prominent places at the feast. They like to be in that special place of honor. Once again, looking for people to see them and treat them as if they were really important. But that was a practice that is unworthy of a genuine believer. Remember when we were looking in chapter 14, verses seven through 11, do you remember how Jesus told a parable to those who were invited when he noted how they chose the best places, saying to them, when you are invited by anyone to a wedding feast, do not sit down in the best place, less one more honorable than you be invited by him. And he who invited you and him, come and say to you, give place to this man. And then you begin with shame to take the lowest place.  And then you'll have glory in the presence of those who sit at the table with you. Whoever exalts himself will be humbled. He who humbles himself will be exalted. That's the truth. Oh, is it? Many years ago now, and I'm thankful to be able to say many years ago now, 20 some years ago, Raul was doing some, Raul Rees was doing some ministry in Albuquerque. And I went with them, along with several other Calvary pastors. And I went along with Raul. I wanted to see how he did this particular ministry and all and so I joined him on his trip and all and we spent some time there 20 some years ago now.  Some of you are familiar with Albuquerque. It's called the Kiva Auditorium and there was an outreach there and so there we are. Now my family lives in New Mexico. And so my brother, Frankie, lives in New Mexico and my sisters live there and now my mom lives there. My family lives in New Mexico and they're all California transplants but they live and have lived there for many years now. And so Frankie was there and he had been going to Calvary Chapel, Albuquerque and Raul was speaking for them at the Kiva Auditorium. And so when we got there, I was seated there amongst the people in this particular auditorium and there were several hundred people and next to me was my nephew and my brother and his wife and all. As we were there, on my left side were some girls and all and they were younger women in their teens and all and they were talking and they said hi to me and I said hi to them and I was kind of seated there and just I was going to listen to Raul teach and then Raul comes out and Raul begins to introduce the people who came with him.  And so he says, you know, I brought my brother Xavier. Xavier was there and he says Xavier, can you stand? Xavier stands in waves and people give them that warm hello, and I'm sitting there going, oh, how cool is this? I'm going to stand up in a minute. And I'm saying, oh, and so he says to my brother-in-law, Gary Ruff is here, Gary, where are you? And then Gary stands up and waves, and then everybody gives him, and now I'm thinking these girls, when I stand up next to them, they're going to go, oh, I was thinking that. Boy, he's important. Raul didn't introduce me. He forgot I was there. And I'm not kidding when I say my heart, I don't know if it's the Lord or it was me, but I heard, ooh, you're so important, aren't you? I heard that. I did, I heard that in my heart. I laughed, but I was so embarrassed. I was so embarrassed. I said, oh, God, be merciful to me as sinner. I did want the attention. Oh, Lord, how subtle is that? Well, I understand this. Whoever exalts himself will be humbled. There's no doubt about it. He who humbles himself will be exalted. He goes on and he says they devour widow's houses and now notice, and for our pretense, make long prayers. They took an unfair advantage of widows. The widows may very well have been supporting them financially and it was kind of like this, if you give me a large gift, I'll say a long prayer for you, a series of prayers. And they took advantage of them. They devour widow's houses and for a pretense, made long prayers. Isaiah 56 verse 11, speaking of this kind of practice, says they are greedy dogs. They never have enough. They are shepherds who lack understanding. They all turn to their own way. Each seeks his own gain. And for this, they receive greater condemnation because they have greater responsibility. And that's what he says in verse 47, these will receive greater condemnation. Greatness in the kingdom of God is predicated on humble service to the Lord. That's the key to greatness. And Christians are to be humble as they seek the Lord and they give God all the glory for the things that God does through them. There's a story I like about two brothers and these two brothers grew up on a farm and one went away to college. He ended up earning a law degree. He became a partner in a prominent law firm in the state capital. The other brother stayed on the family farm.  And the brother pointed and said, see that field of wheat over there? Look closely. Only the empty heads stand up. Those that are well filled always bow low. And I think that's a good point. Only the empty heads stand up. Now we can go on and glorify ourselves all we want but when you have something that God has given to you there's just a tendency of being humble before him. Jesus is speaking here and he's saying, listen, this is what you ought to be. Humble servants, serving me because you know I am Messiah, the son of David. And as you do so, you will be rewarded for doing so. But if you seek your own pleasure then you ultimately enter into everlasting condemnation. So watch out for the scribes he says, don't be like them.