Author Says Martin Luther Legend Misrepresents the Real Man

Christians have heard the famous story of Martin Luther nailing the 95 Theses to the door of the closest Catholic Church, kicking off the Protestant Reformation in 1517. But the real story is more complex, according to New York Times-bestselling author Eric Metaxas.

“He was a humble, obedient monk,” Metaxas said. “This was not a firebrand or a rebel of any stripe whatsoever.”

Metaxas, who has written “Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy” and other books about great people throughout history, wanted to get a real look at Luther and his motive for pointing out corruption in the Catholic Church.

Listen to the full clip (above) for more about Luther as we get ready for the 500th anniversary of the Reformation.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

STU: Joining us in the studio, an author, radio host, commentator extravaganza. It's the author of Martin Luther: The Man Who Discovered God and Changed the World. Eric Metaxas.

GLENN: Good friend. I haven't seen you since I left New York.

STU: It's been a while.

ERIC: I think quite possibly.

GLENN: How are you?

ERIC: I may have seen you in Florida at some event. It is great to see you. I love you and admire you from a distance.

GLENN: Well, likewise.

ERIC: And now from a very short distance. Glenn, thanks for having me.

GLENN: Yeah. Good to see you. Your book Bonhoeffer, it just changed me. Fundamentally changed me. And you have -- you have made a career out of going in and highlighting these really amazing people that stood at critical times.

You did Bonhoeffer.

ERIC: Wilburforce.

GLENN: Wilburforce. And now Martin Luther.

ERIC: Yep.

GLENN: Martin Luther seems distant and dusty. Dust him off.

ERIC: You obviously haven't read the book, Glenn.

GLENN: I have not. I just got it today.

ERIC: This book will blow the cobwebs off any dusty recollections you have. I have to say, in all seriousness, as it is with every one of the books I've written, it wasn't my idea. I kind of didn't want to write it.

You know, Bonhoeffer -- you know the story, writing Bonhoeffer was tremendously painful and difficult for me. I had to switch publishers. It was an agony of my life. People think I'm exaggerating. It was hell. But God spoke to me, and he said, "I have my hand on this book." And he did.

But I really wasn't gung-ho to write another biography, I'll be honest with you. But some friends, I dedicate the book to them, twisted my arm and kept saying, Eric, you wrote the Bonhoeffer book. You're the guy to write the Luther book because it's the 500th anniversary. And I actually thought, well, what 500th anniversary? I'm not paying attention.

And they explained to me, 1517 is the moment when he nailed the 95 thesis to the door of the Wittenberg Castle Church. And that's where they trace the beginning of the Reformation, was this moment. Although, talk about blowing the cobwebs off of things. People -- we see that moment in retrospect as a heroic moment, right? He's thundering against the corrupt papacy by nailing this thing. And it's just the opposite. He was like tacking something up to a bulletin board. It was like a notice, hey, you know what, I think we're going to have a little debate, a theological debate.

GLENN: You're kidding me. Really?

ERIC: Oh, yeah. If you read that part in the book, you won't even believe what it really was. In fact, not only was he not tacking something up on a bulletin board, he may have given it to the church custodian to tack it up on the bulletin board, or he may have done it himself and used paste and not a hammer. Like we have this image of him --

GLENN: So what happened? So how did that get --

ERIC: Well, basically -- I mean, to focus on that, this seminal moment 500 years ago, he was somebody who had discovered some things theologically. But let's get it straight, he was a humble, observant monk. This was not a firebrand or rebel of any stripe whatsoever. This was a man devoted to God and devoted to the church. And he saw that what was going on with indulgences -- by the way, he was a priest. So people would come to him in the confessional and say, hey, I got a get out of jail free card. Here you go.

And he would look at this piece of paper that they had bought with their money, which they didn't have, and he would say, what kind of corruption? What kind of confusion -- these people's souls are in danger. They think they can spend money and sin and pay for it. I mean, it had become very corrupt.

But he didn't say, oh, I want to tear the church down. He thought to myself, it is my duty as a theologian, because he was not just a monk and a priest, but a fine theologian, one of the finest.

He said, I need to bring this to the attention to the academic establishment, to other theologians, because if we don't begin to deal with this issue of indulgences, it's going to bring us down.

This is one of the most terrible excesses that we've experienced. And so he said, let's have an academic debate. So in Latin, he prints up 95 statements, which when you wanted to have an academic disputation, that's kind of the way you did it. And you tacked it up some place. And people would say, oh, that's interesting. I'd like to participate. And you would gather and have an academic debate. Maybe in Latin. Probably in Latin.

So he tacks this up, having no clue that in retrospect it will look like, you know, Neil Armstrong planting the flag on the moon, Columbus planting the flag in the American soil. I mean, it's a moment in history that has grown out of all proportion. Because in retrospect, we understand the significance. That moment led to everything that followed.

GLENN: So that is bizarre. Because it is -- you do look at that as a moment of courage.

When did the moment of courage hit him?

ERIC: Well, I would say there are -- as with anybody of true courage and faith, that they're -- it's a continuum of courage. In other words, it's not like at one moment, he girds his loins and is --

GLENN: Yes.

ERIC: He is a man who -- what I talk about is that before this moment, when he had become a monk, for example -- why did he become a monk? He became a monk because he took the idea of salvation and heaven and hell so seriously that he said, I need to devote my whole life to this. And this was against his father's wishes. His father had sent him to the finest schools, wanted him to become a lawyer. And just as he begins law school, it all kind of gets to him. This is in 1505. He's 23 years old. And he kind of realizes, I don't know where I'm going to spend eternity.

Some lawyers had just died and had shared on their deathbeds, I wish I had become a monk. Where am I going now? Really, he was rattled. I think a lot of people were rattled. But he was a very intense, passionate person. Brilliant.

So he decides in a moment that -- that's his own story, that he's the middle of a lightning storm. And he fears for his life. And he blurts out to St. Anne, who is the patron saint of miners -- his father was in the mining business.

He says, St. Anne, if you save me, I'll become a monk.

But it wasn't like he just blurted it out and hadn't been think about this. Let's face it, he had been thinking about this for years. So he becomes a monk and devotes his life in the monastery to praying harder, to confessing more, to fasting more. He was skin and bones. The whole experience was, how do I earn my way?

GLENN: He must have -- he must have hated the popes.

ERIC: Well, no. Not until later.

GLENN: How? It was before Leo.

ERIC: All.

GLENN: And the one before him was also nasty.

ERIC: These dudes, they were -- I mean, every educated, devoted Catholic is properly ashamed of this period of the papacy?

GLENN: Yeah.

ERIC: It's like the church -- and people know I'm a very pro-Catholic non-Catholic. I didn't write this book to bash the Catholic Church. When you look at this history. You see, what this is the tendency? And this all goes back to what we believe about freedom and the nature of man.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

ERIC: What is the nature of any institution? It is the nature of power. It is to consolidate more power. How can I get more power?

GLENN: Yeah, yeah.

ERIC: And the church had become hugely powerful. So Luther, while he's a monk, he's not thinking about this. He is a devoted monk. He's thinking about his own salvation. All that other stuff comes later. But at this point, he's devoted to saving himself, in a way, right? And a lot of people think that's what Christianity is. You save yourself.

You work hard, you don't sin, you keep your nose clean. Don't screw it up, and you might get into heaven. So he's working the program -- right? To use a 12 steps reference, harder than anyone who ever lived, and he's becoming more miserable. He's not getting closer to God. And so he starts cracking up. Why -- if I am doing everything right.

He would confess -- at one point, he confessed six hours straight. His father confessor Staupitz, who was in the book, literally says to him at some point, enough. Bring me adultery. Bring me murder. Otherwise, get out. Leave me alone. You're torturing me.

He would confess a moment of pride. I prayed so hard, that I had a moment of pride for having prayed so hard, and I have to confess my pride.

He was driving everyone insane. So long story short, Luther kind of realizes, this is not working. I'm not getting closer to God. Do I love God? No, I hate God. God is a judge who scares me, and I'm trying to jump through these hoops to please him.

And his father Confessor Staupitz says to him, you don't think that God loves you. You think God hates you. But he loves you. I mean, it was this real conundrum.

So Luther eventually realizes that nobody is studying the Scriptures. Because as you know, the printing press wasn't invented until very recently at that point.

So Luther does what no one else is doing, almost no one else. He starts digging, digging into the scriptures. And I think of it like a guy who has a disease. And he says, I have to find the cure to the disease.

So I don't want food. I don't want phone calls. I'm just going to be looking into the scriptures because I'm trying to find the key to my problem. And so he effectively finds it around 1517. All these things coalesce. And he realizes, oh, my goodness, it's kind of like somebody tells you that, you know, you're racing up a ladder, and it's like the ladder is leaning up against the wrong building. You can come down now. You've been wasting your time. He says, what I've been looking for is given to me freely by God as a gift of grace.

The righteousness of God, which I was scared of, is God gives that to me as a loving gift. I don't need to do anything. He gave it to me.

It's in a -- in an account in my name, all I have to do is go get it. But nobody told me that it was there. You want to talk about a mind blower. This blew the mind of Luther. But this kind of was like the bomb. The explosion from this creates the future in which we live. Freedom. Everything that we take for granted in the modern world comes from that.

GLENN: And we'll get into that here in a second.

STU: He's @EricMetaxas on Twitter. And EricMetaxas.com. The book is Martin Luther. The man who rediscovered God and changed the world.

GLENN: I am so thrilled to have Eric Metaxas not only on the show, but in the studio with us. He wrote a game-changing book for me, called Bonhoeffer. If you haven't read that, you need to.

And I just last week finished some books, and I thought, I'm only going to start reading stuff that will fill me up with good, solid, rock solid information. So this couldn't come at a better time for me. Martin Luther is his latest book. The Man Who Rediscovered God and Changed the World. Tell me how he's relatable today.

ERIC: Oh. This is the funny thing. I take kind of a perverse pride in going into these book projects, pretty darn ignorant. And I have friends, the guys I dedicated the book to, Marcus Speaker (phonetic) and my buddy Greg Thornbury, the president of The King's College in New York City was explaining to me -- because he's a theologian -- why I need to write the book, because Luther is significant in all these ways.

And the more I went into it, the more I thought, how do we not all know this? And it happens with every one of these books I write, how did I not know this?

Luther, what he did, exactly 500 years ago, opened the door to the future. I -- I titled the epilogue, where I kind of explain all this in the book, the man who discovered the future. Because this seminal moment, after 15 years of neglect in a way, that tradition -- the accretions of history and so on and so forth, had obscured the central issue, which is called the gospel. The free gift of Jesus, which makes us all be able to have a direct relationship to God. It doesn't need to be through an institution or whatever.

It's exactly what Whitfield was preaching, you know, 200 years later, which created America. Without that, you don't have anything like freedom, the freedom of the individual to stand against the state.

GLENN: It's crazy. Last week or two weeks ago, we had two people in the media, one Meet the Press and the other on NBC that said, you know, your rights don't come from God. That's this. It's direct --

ERIC: Listen -- look, somebody interviewed me recently about what Margaret Feinstein said and whatever. Our leaders -- things are so bad that our leaders in the Senate, on the Senate level, do not understand the basics. It's like trying to write a book and you don't know the alphabet. They don't understand the concept of what freedom is. Where it comes from, that it comes from God.

That at the heart of freedom is religious liberties, this idea that I can think any dumb thought I want. And it's protected. God said you have a right to think your own thoughts.

I mean, it's so fundamental. But, as you know, for 40 or so years, we have not been teaching this in schools, so even our elite journalists and our senators don't understand the building blocks of how we have everything that we have.

And this issue of having a direct relationship to God, being all equal before God -- I mean, when Whitfield preached this throughout the 18th century, up and down the 13 colonies, it was a revolution. People thought, really?

You mean if the minister is preaching something that's not right, I have the right to go to another church or to object? Or if the magistrate or the governor or the king is behaving in a way that's not right, according to God, I have the right to protest or something? This was an earth-shattering thing. And it began for sure with Luther.

And as we know, freedom comes with a price, right? Freedom is not always good in the sense that you are now free to do the wrong thing, okay? You're free to start a crazy church. You're free to start the Church of Scientology. Not just a good Protestant Church. You're free to start loony stuff and cults. That's the price of freedom. But which of us would trade that freedom --

GLENN: You have 30 seconds.

ERIC: -- for the slavery of being under an institution, that's going to tell you the meaning of truth and you cannot dissent?

GLENN: I think more and more people are getting to that point to where they're willing to do that. They're willing to trade -- they take their freedoms so for granted, they don't even really understand it. They won't until they lose it, until they lose it.

The name of the book is Martin Luther: The Man Who Rediscovered God and Changed the World. Eric Metaxas, the best-selling author of Bonhoeffer. Always good to have you in, Eric.

ERIC: My joy. Thanks, Glenn. Appreciate it.

GLENN: God bless.

We made it. It's Friday. This has been a tornado of a week. We endured the nonstop commotion of the migrant family separation policy and, best of all, we saw a near-immediate resolution, with President Trump's reversal of the policy. Whatever your stance on the policy, you have to admit, it's a good thing the chaos is over.

RELATED: Stop trying to be right and think of the children

Apparently, not everyone feels the same. Time magazine, for instance, has chosen to focus on the now-resolved matter for their July 2nd issue. They've released the cover. It features a cutout of the sobbing 2-year-old Honduran asylum-seeker — you've likely seen the image — captured by Getty photographer John Moore. Only, instead of featuring the original image, Time has chosen to photoshop an oversized image of President Trump, postured to appear like a bully standing over the crying girl. The background is solid read. The caption reads: "Welcome to America."

It's not enough to blame Trump for the whole debacle. We can't even have that conversation. No, the mainstream media feels the need to literally plaster him on the cover, to photoshop him into an awful situation, to make him look like a villain however they can. What good does that accomplish? And how long is the media going to demonize the President—what does he have to do?

The cover story is titled "A Reckoning After Trump's Border Separation Policy: What Kind of Country Are We?" Excellent question. What sort of country are we? Are we the sort of country that can pull it together and make this thing work despite our differences? Or are we the kind of country full of ungrateful people who throw tantrums even when everything goes their way?

President Trump reversed the policy, shouldn't that get some attention? Shouldn't he get some credit for affecting change in a way that his predecessor — contrary to what you'd surmise from the media — was unable to? No, instead, lately, we're the sort of country that shames and bullies our own leader even when he does the right thing.

We're the sort of country that shames and bullies our own leader even when he does the right thing.

Nietzsche noted that the severest punishment you can inflict on a person isn't to punish them after they've done something wrong or bad. In many ways, that sort of punishment can actually foster relief. The severest punishment is to punish someone when they've done something good, because you lessen the chance that they'll continue to do good.

And we need good.

I know at the heart of things, we're the kind of country that can come together for the good of mankind. We've proven that. But we need everybody.

The Left has been protesting and throwing tantrums since the day Trump was elected. They don't like him, we get it. At some point they need to change from diapers to undies so we can move forward.

Has anybody else noticed how politicized sports have gotten? The NFL is practically three berets away from a socialist revolution. They seem more concerned with dismantling social norms and protesting than with playing football. The Minnesota Vikings announced yesterday they will host a summit and fundraiser for LGBTQ inclusion in sports.

According to LifeSiteNews, the LGBTQ inclusion summit will "include speeches, interviews, and panel discussions with a variety of athletes, coaches, and activists who are homosexual or transgender" and "will be hosted at the team's recently-completed TCO Performance Center."

The summit marks the latest in the NFL's continued advocacy for LGBTQ rights and initiatives. Last year, the league launched NFL Pride, in a bid to "heighten sensitivity to the LGBTQ community" and reinforce "commitment to an inclusive environment in which all employees are welcome."

RELATED: New NFL policy will punish players who protest the national anthem

Fair enough. No one should be harassed or discriminated against in the workplace, but is that really what this is about? Because it kind of seems like there's more going on here. Kind of seems like there's a political, ideological slant to it. At the very least, it's virtue signaling.

The summit is "part of a settlement agreement the Vikings made after [former Vikings punter Chris Kluwe], who is straight, filed a lawsuit against the team in 2014 for allegedly creating a hostile work environment for homosexual and transgender people."

So, yeah, virtue signaling.

Ultimately, the NFL is a private business and, as we saw with the National Anthem kneelers, they can conduct their business however they like, and in turn the consumers can decide whether or not to keep giving them their money.

Mostly, the situation is just strange. Can you imagine how well this partnership would have gone over in the 1970s? Moreover, at what point does being LGBTQ come up during sports? How have we landed in this strange place, where politics and gender and race must be represented within every single interaction?

It's also worth mentioning that most people don't care if an athlete is gay — with the possible exception of transgender athletes, but that's another topic entirely. This tolerance has actually been confirmed by studies and surveys throughout all kinds of sports, in various countries throughout the world. Even countries with, shall we say, a far less tolerant view of the LGBTQ community than we have here in the USA — even people in those countries believe that it doesn't matter. People watch sports to see athleticism, to enjoy the unpredictable fury of sports at its finest.

People watch sports to see athleticism, to enjoy the unpredictable fury of sports at its finest.

Overwhelmingly, regardless of the sport, people do not care about the athletes' sexuality — in fact, most of us would rather not know. We don't watch golf to muse the social significance of gender norms and sexuality. We don't go to a baseball game to meditate on the evils of the patriarchy and the terrors of cultural appropriation. If an athlete is good, who cares what their orientation is? It's certainly not a new idea that LGBTQ can perform in sports. Typically, what sports fans care about is talent. Is the athlete good?

I guarantee that if Liberace rose from the dead tomorrow morning and was suddenly able to play basketball as well as 90s-era Michael Jordan, Chicago Bulls fans would not complain if he joined the team. I think it's fair to say that most people like sports better when they aren't swamped with politics. Keep the politics elsewhere, especially these days, when it's nearly impossible to escape the increasingly intolerant politics of the Left.

Perhaps they could learn a lesson from our friends, the Ancient Greeks. It's no secret that the Ancient Greeks indulged in, well, LGBTQ activities. They were quite fond of the various activities. But they also built a civilization of tremendous importance to humanity as a whole. Philosophy, art and, yes, sports. When they were charged off to war, they didn't slap a Rainbow flag bumper sticker on the back of their chariot. Their sexuality did not define their identity. They were multifaceted human beings, able to go to war or to the theater or to the town hall as a citizen, because citizenry was what mattered, personhood and selfhood. More importantly, they lived in a time when people cared about self and tribe over sexuality and gender. Identity was selfhood, not sexuality.

At the end of the day, who cares if the Minnesota Vikings want to host an LGBTQ event? But they should expect to see an increase in shoulder-padded men traipsing across the stage on Broadway.

UPDATE: Here's how the discussion went on radio. Watch the video below.

Most people like sports better when politics aren't involved

Breaking down the announcement that the Minnesota Vikings will be hosting a summit and fundraiser for LGBTQ inclusion in sports.


Stop trying to be right and think of the children

Mario Tama/Getty Images

All the outrage this week has mainly focused on one thing: the evil Trump administration and its minions who delight in taking children from their illegal immigrant parents and throwing them all in dungeons. Separate dungeons, mind you.

That makes for a nice, easy storyline, but the reality is less convenient. Most Americans seem to agree that separating children from their parents — even if their parents entered the US illegally — is a bad thing. But what if that mom and dad you're trying to keep the kids with aren't really the kids' parents? Believe it or not, fraud happens.

RELATED: Where were Rachel Maddow's tears for immigrant children in 2014?

While there are plenty of heartbreaking stories of parents simply seeking a chance for a better life for their children in the US, there are also corrupt, abusive human traffickers who profit from the illegal immigration trade. And sorting all of this out is no easy task.

This week, the Department of Homeland Security said that since October 2017, more than 300 children have arrived at the border with adults claiming to be their parents who turned out not to be relatives. 90 of these fraud cases came from the Rio Grande Valley sector alone.

In 2017, DHS reported 46 causes of fraudulent family claims. But there have already been 191 fraud cases in 2018.

Shouldn't we be concerned about any child that is smuggled by a human trafficker?

When Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen pointed out this 315 percent increase, the New York Times was quick to give these family fraud cases "context" by noting they make up less than one percent of the total number of illegal immigrant families apprehended at the southern border. Their implication was that Nielsen was exaggerating the numbers. Even if the number of fraud cases at the border was only 0.001 percent, shouldn't we be concerned about any child that is smuggled by a human trafficker?

This is the most infuriating part of this whole conversation this week (if you can call it a "conversation") — that both sides have an angle to defend. And while everyone's busy yelling and making their case, children are being abused.

What if we just tried, for two seconds, to love having mercy more than we love having to be right all the time?

Remember when cartoons were happy things? Each panel took you on a tiny journey, carrying you to an unexplored place. In Understanding Comics, Scott McCloud writes:

The comics creator asks us to join in a silent dance of the seen and the unseen. The visible and the invisible. This dance is unique to comics. No other artform gives so much to its audience while asking so much from them as well. This is why I think it's a mistake to see comics as a mere hybrid of the graphic arts and prose fiction. What happens between . . . panels is a kind of magic only comics can create.

When that magic is manipulated or politicized, it often devolves the artform into a baseless thing. Yesterday, Occupy Wall Street published the perfect example of low-brow deviation of the artform: A six-panel approach at satire, which imitates the instructions-panel found in the netted cubbyhole behind seats on airplanes. The cartoon is a critique of the recent news about immigrant children being separated from their parents after crossing the border. It is a step-by-step guide to murdering US Immigrations and Customs Enforcement agents.

RELATED: Cultural appropriation has jumped the shark, and everyone is noticing

The first panel shows a man shoving an infant into a cage meant for Pomeranians. The following five panels feature instructions, and include pictures of a cartoonish murder.

The panels read as follows:

  1. If an ICE agent tries to take your child at the border, don't panic.
  2. Pull your child away as quickly as possibly by force.
  3. Gently tell your child to close his/her eyes and ears so they won't witness what you are about to do.
  4. Grab the ICE agent from behind and push your knife into his chest with an upward thrust, causing the agent's sternum to break.
  5. Reach into his chest and pull out his still beating heart.
  6. Hold his bloody heart out for all other agents to see, and tell them that the same fate awaits them if they f--- with your child again.

Violent comics are nothing new. But most of the time, they remain in the realms of invented worlds — in other words, not in our own, with reference to actual people, let alone federal agents.

The mainstream media made a game of crying racism with every cartoon depiction of Obama during his presidency, as well as during his tenure as Senator, when the New Yorker, of all things, faced scrutiny for depicting him in "Muslim clothing." Life was a minefield for political cartoonists during the Obama era.

Chris Hondros/Getty Images

This year, we saw the leftist outrage regarding The Simpsons character Apu — a cartoon representation of a highly-respected, though cartoonishly-depicted, character on a cartoon show composed of cartoonishly-depicted characters.

We all remember Charlie Hebdo, which, like many outlets that have used cartoon satire to criticize Islam, faced the wrath and ire of people unable to see even the tamest representation of the prophet, Muhammad.

Interesting, isn't it? Occupy Wall Street publishes a cartoon that advocates murdering federal agents, and critics are told to lighten up. Meanwhile, the merest depiction of Muhammad has resulted in riots throughout the world, murder and terror on an unprecedented scale.

The intersection of Islam and comics is complex enough to have its own three-hour show, so we'll leave it at that, for now. Although, it is worth mentioning the commentary by satirical website The Onion, which featured a highly offensive cartoon of all the major religious figures except Muhammad. It noted:

Following the publication of the image above, in which the most cherished figures from multiple religious faiths were depicted engaging in a lascivious sex act of considerable depravity, no one was murdered, beaten, or had their lives threatened.

Of course, Occupy Wall Street is free to publish any cartoon they like. Freedom of speech, and so on—although there have been several instances in which violent cartoons were ruled to have violated the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" limitation of the First Amendment.

Posting it to Twitter is another issue — this is surely in violation of Twitter's violent content policy, but something tells me nothing will come of it. It's a funny world, isn't it? A screenshot of a receipt from Chick-fil-A causes outrage but a cartoon advocating murder gets crickets.

RELATED: Twitter mob goes ballistic over Father's Day photo of Caitlyn Jenner. Who cares?

In Understanding Comics, Scott McCloud concludes that, "Today the possibilities for comics are — as they've always been — endless. Comics offers . . . range and versatility, with all the potential imagery of film and painting plus the intimacy of the written word. And all that's needed is the desire to be heard, the will to learn, and the ability to see."

Smile, and keep moving forward.

Crude and awful as the Occupy Wall Street comic is, the best thing we can do is nod and look elsewhere for the art that will open our eyes. Let the lunatics draw what they want, let them stew in their own flawed double standards. Otherwise, we're as shallow and empty as they are, and nothing good comes of that. Smile, and keep moving forward.

Things are getting better. Show the world how to hear, how to learn, how to see.