Now that the groundwork has been laid (see post one in this series), and before he moves into a specific consideration of the text in Genesis 2ff, John Walton takes up an important broader question in his sixth proposition:
How is the word adam used in Genesis 1-5?
The chapter begins with two simple observations (which seem to have escaped many of those who claim to read the text “literally”) that are stunning in their implications for our interpretation of these early stories.
Understanding the varied use of the term adam is essential to sorting our the early chapters of Genesis. But before we even get to that issue, there are two important observations to make. The first is that the word adam is a Hebrew word meaning “human.” Regarding this observation, the fact that it is Hebrew indicates that the category designation (“human”) is imposed by those who spoke Hebrew. Adam and Eve would not have called each other these names because whatever they spoke, it was not Hebrew. Hebrew does not exist as a language until somewhere in the middle of the second millennium B.C. That means that these names are not just a matter of historical reporting as if their names happened to be Adam and Eve like someone else’s name is Bill or Mary. Although I believe that Adam and Eve are historical personages — real people in a real past — these cannot be their historical names. The names are Hebrew, and there is no Hebrew at the point in time when Adam and Eve lived.
If these are not historical names, then they must be assigned names, intended by the Hebrew-speaking users to convey and particular meaning. Such a deduction leads us to the second observation. In English, if we read that someone’s name is “Human” and his partner’s name is “Life,” we quickly develop an impression of what is being communicated (as, for example, in Pilgrim’s Progress, where characters are named Christian, Faithful and Hopeful). These characters, by virtue of their assigned names, are larger than the historical characters to which they refer. They represent something beyond themselves. Consequently, we can see from the start that interpretation may not be straightforward. More is going on than giving some biographical information about two people in history. (p. 58f)
Adam & Eve, Baldung Grien
With these simple observations, John Walton has, in my opinion, changed the entire debate about Adam and Eve. The question becomes not so much “Were Adam and Eve real, historical personages?” but rather, “What do these two people (historical or not) represent to the author of Genesis in the context of the story he is telling?”
Also, the fact that their assigned names suggest something beyond their own individual, historical personalities and experiences gives strong evidence that we are reading a genre of literature that is something other than historical reporting.
In his reading of Genesis, Walton finds that the designation adam has three basic uses:
adam refers to human beings as a species
adam refers to the male of the species
adam refers to a particular male of the species, and serves as the equivalent of a name
After discussing these usages and a few of the grammatical irregularities of usage in the text, John Walton offers this conclusion:
Consequently, we can see that the profile of Adam is complex rather than straightforward. These chapters are not just giving biographical information on a man named Adam. Larger statements are being made. (p. 61)
These “larger statements” to which John Walton refers inform our next task. We must try to understand what kind of representative role Adam is playing in these stories, according to the author of Genesis.
Note from CM: On Sundays in 2015, we are looking at excerpts from our Archives in order to hear the continuing voice of Michael Spencer, the Internet Monk, who died five years ago. Today’s post gives an example of one of his lessons from the Gospel of Mark, and how Michael tried to understand and communicate the ongoing relevance of the Gospels to our lives today.
• • •
[Here is one of the] fundamental questions: How do we relate Kingdom, discipleship and cross together in one integrated view of Jesus and the Gospel?
Let me suggest some possible answers:
1. The Kingdom of God is the great theme of scripture, but the nature of that Kingdom is much different than any other Kingdom.
2. In order for the Kingdom of God to established in history, God provides a King who is also priest, prophet, sacrifice, temple, teacher and a fulfillment of all the other Biblical themes that are part of the Kingdom in history.
3. One of the ways we recognize Jesus is that he speaks of the Kingdom, but also, in himself, provides the defeat of sin and resurrection to new life that are necessary for those who would be part of the Kingdom. Yet he never ceases to be King.
4. Jesus is the presence of the Kingdom, and his ministry of healing, teaching and exorcisms prefigures the complete defeat of sin and evil. In the cross and resurrection that victory becomes total.
5. The response of any person to God’s Kingdom proclamation is a) faith and b) discipleship, i.e. to believe in/trust the God of the Kingdom and to live out the reality of the Kingdom.
6. The tension between faith and imperfect obedience is dealt with by the cross, where the Kingdom becomes a Kingdom of fulfilled law and amazing grace.
7. The invitation to the Kingdom is a personal response to Jesus’ offer of himself as Lord, savior, substitute and teacher. One believes and enters the Kingdom; one believes and follows/obeys the King.
8. The cross makes it possible for the Kingdom of God to be constituted of sinful persons but to be a Kingdom of perfect righteousness.
9. The mark of the Kingdom is its Christ-centeredness. This defines the Kingdom in terms of our personal relationship to God. In history, that Christ centeredness becomes Kingdom living, evangelism, missions, compassionate ministry, love of neighbor, etc.
10. The old and new covenants are harmonized when the Kingdom of the old covenant is personified in Jesus and “signaled†in the church. Jesus now brings the Kingdom and disciples are living “Kingdom” lives now, in advance.
My contention is that a simple reading of the synoptics will clearly show that Jesus gives none of his followers a pass from the entire course of discipleship, that he is calling us to live as signs of the Kingdom of God in history, and his cross forever settles the nature of our relationship with God in the Kingdom: constant, overflowing grace.
Hello, friends, and welcome to the weekend. Ready to Ramble?
Then hop in the ’62 convertible
The World Happiness Report for 2015 was released this week. The report identifies the countries with the highest levels of happiness:
Switzerland
Iceland
Denmark
Norway
Canada
Apparently the colder you are the happier you are. That’s my main take-away from this.
The list of people running for president keeps on growing, a full year and a half before the actual election. Ted Cruz was first in. Hillary Clinton, Marco Rubio and Rand Paul announced last week. Jeb Bush, Mike Hucklebee, Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina and Lindsey Graham are expected to join in the next week or two, and Chris Christie and Scott Walker are lingering in the wings. Even Hulk Hogan is running.
And I am asking President Putin to settle this with me mano a mano. We will be armed with one folding chair apiece.
Those familiar with Walton’s earlier work know that he writes on this subject by setting forth propositions, then explaining and defending them. This book contains 21 propositions that focus mostly on the text of Genesis 2-3 and the questions it raises in the origins debates.
The focus is not on concordism, that is, trying to show compatibility between the biblical accounts and scientific findings, but rather on understanding the text of Scripture itself. Walton gives primary attention to the meaning and significance of these OT texts and what they communicate in their Ancient Near Eastern context.
Walton says:
In this book, I will contend that the perceived threat posed by the current consensus about human origins is overblown. That consensus accepts the principles of common ancestry and evolutionary theory as the explanation for the existence of all life. Though we should not blindly accept the scientific consensus if its results are questionable on scientific principles, we can reach an understanding that regardless of whether the the scientific principles stand the test of time or not, they pose no threat to biblical belief. Admittedly, however, a perception of conflict is not uncommon.
With that in mind, I will not give very much attention to the question of the legitimacy of the scientific claims. Instead I will be conducting a close reading of the Bible as an ancient document to explore the claims it makes. (p. 13)
I am going to try and make sense with this post, but please bear with me. I just got home late from being on call, and have given myself a one-hour time limit to put this post together. I’ll try to make my point concise, but I’m not sure I will be able to give a full analysis or present everything I want to say.
The other day I watched the HBO documentary Questioning Darwin (2014). The film portrays two “sides” in the creation/evolution debate. On the one hand they interview proponents of Young Earth Creationism, such as Ken Ham, Pastor Joe Coffey, and others. On the other hand, they have scientists speak on behalf of evolutionary science while at the same time telling Charles Darwin’s story about his discoveries, how he came to write The Origin of the Species, and the impact his journey had on his own faith. I’m going to try and watch it again sometime soon, because I want to be able to analyze it more carefully.
I just want to make one observation at this point, because a particular thought struck me with new impact while watching this film.
That observation is this:
I was impressed anew at how evangelical Christianity comes across as faith in a system rather than faith in the person of Jesus Christ.
Religious despair is often a defense against boredom and the daily grind of existence. Lacking intensity in our lives, we say that we are distant from God and then seek to make that distance into an intense experience. It is among the most difficult spiritual ailments to heal, because it is usually wholly illusory. There are definitely times when we must suffer God’s absence, when we are called to enter the dark night of the soul in order to pass into some new understanding of God, some deeper communion with him and with all creation. But this is very rare, and for the most part our dark nights of the soul are, in a way that is more pathetic than tragic, wishful thinking. God is not absent. He is everywhere in the world we are too dispirited to love. To feel him — to find him — does not usually require that we renounce all worldly possessions and enter a monastery, or give our lives to some cause of social justice, or create some sort of sacred art, or begin spontaneously speaking in tongues. All too often the task to which we are called is simply to show a kindness to the irritating person in the cubicle next to us, say or to touch the face of a spouse from whom we ourselves have been long absent, letting grace wake love from our intense, self-enclosed sleep.
A Jewish folk tale talks of a young man who aspired to great holiness. After some time at working to achieve it, he went to see his rabbi. “Rabbi,” he announced, “I think I have achieved sanctity.” “Why do you think that?” asked the rabbi. “Well,” responded the young man, “I’ve been practicing virtue and discipline for some time now, and I have grown quite proficient at them. From the time the sun rises until it sets, I practice a rigorous asceticism: I take no food or water. All day long, I do all kinds of hard work for others and I never expect to be thanked. If I have temptations of the flesh, I roll in the snow or in thorn bushes until they go away, and then at night, before bed, I practice the ancient monastic discipline and administer lashes to my bare back. I have strongly disciplined myself so as to become holy.”
The rabbi was silent for a time. Then he took the young man by the arm and led him to a window and pointed to an old horse that was just being led away by its master. “I have been observing that horse for some time,” the rabbi said, “and I’ve noticed that it doesn’t get fed or watered from morning to night. All day long it has to do work for people, and it never gets thanked. I often see it rolling around in snow or in bushes, as horses are prone to do, and frequently I see it get whipped, but that, young man, is a horse, not a saint!”
I spent Monday through Friday last week at one of my favorite places in the world: The Abbey of Our Lady of Gethsemani, near Bardstown, Kentucky. This was my third retreat at Gethsemani, and each of them has had a different purpose.
I went in November 2011 in a state of exhaustion from a heavy workload, both in terms of hours logged and the intensity of the work itself. This trip was my first to a monastery and it was pure refreshment. After sleeping much of the first two days and doing little other than attending the daily prayer services and eating meals in the dining hall, I found myself absorbing the silence of the place. I began walking and taking pictures, and the burdens came drifting off my shoulders as I took in the quiet and the words of the psalms being chanted. You can read about this experience in the archives: how I learned the value of places like this and came to appreciate people like the Trappist monks, who seem to embrace the calling of upholding the world in prayer. My first retreat was just that, and I was refreshed.
Last March (2014) I went back to Gethsemani for a time of discernment. As I wrote about here on Internet Monk, I was in a “fog” about some vocational decisions related to ordination and returning to parish ministry or remaining in chaplaincy. It was a different time of year; spring was just beginning to emerge, and I was hoping that a clear path would appear before me. I spent a lot of time walking and taking pictures of birds around the property, trying to absorb the truth of Matthew 6:26 — “Look at the birds of the air; they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they?” I did not attend as many of the services but spent more time reading and journaling, trying to hear what God was saying. Whereas the first retreat was about rest, this one was about listening, and I believe I received good direction during my long weekend there.
A third and entirely different purpose lay behind last week’s sojourn to Gethsemani. I am currently engaged in a writing project. I’ll share more about it in the future, but suffice to say at this point it is difficult to fit something like this into my schedule of hospice work and blogging. It’s not so much about the time required as it is the mental and emotional energy (at least for me). Believe me, my tank was running low. So I needed a quiet place with no interruptions where I could think and read and write. No better place for that than Gethsemani. So I carefully planned where my time and attention would be. I focused on going to two services each day: Eucharist in the morning and Compline (my favorite) at night. The Great Meteorologist helped too: the weather was mostly cool and rainy so I was not tempted to ramble or spend a lot of time taking photographs. I staked a claim on a table in the back corner of the dining room where I could plug in my laptop and write away, and that’s mostly what I did. Thanks be to God, I made great progress and then came home this weekend and completed my first major draft of the project. This was a working retreat, and I can’t say it was about rejuvenation, except for the good feeling of having accomplished something that would otherwise have been impossible. Nevertheless, the quiet and freedom from other responsibilities and mental/emotional burdens did bring a measure of rest and refreshment, for which I’m thankful.
In the Christian scriptures, the term the body of Christ is used to refer equally to three things: the historical body of Jesus, the body of believers, and the Eucharist. Each of these is referred to as the body of Christ. Each is the body of Christ. For instance, when Saint Paul refers to either the community of believers or the Eucharist, he never intimates that they are like Jesus, that they replace Jesus, that they are symbolic representations of Jesus, or even that they are a mystical presence of Jesus. Each is equally called the body of Christ, each is that place in our world where God takes on concrete flesh. God still has skin in this world, in the Eucharist and in the community of believers. The incarnation is still going on. The word is still becoming flesh and living among us. (p. 17)
Rolheiser is obviously Roman Catholic, but I find that he states his views in ways that are generous and ecumenical, suggesting that divisions such as those between Catholics and Protestants about the relative prominence of Word vs. Table go back to the earliest days of the Church. I wish we could all be more ecumenical when it comes to the sacrament. It is hard to be at a place like Gethsemani and be unable to fully partake. In my own understanding, I would put it like this: in Christian worship we are called to gather at the Table, where Jesus feeds us with his Word and himself. The Table should be front and center in our church buildings because it is the symbol of what we are doing when we come together: worship is a sacred family meal. We come together, we share words, we enjoy a meal, we depart renewed. A family meal gathering is about more than the food alone and more than the conversation alone. The whole is more than the sum of its parts. Both “Word” and “Table” as sacramental actions (preaching, Eucharist) are enfolded within the concept of coming to the family meal together and being strengthened in the spirit of the family, the bonds of love. In this, I rejoice with all who confess Jesus as Lord.
Certainly, however, the family meal would not be what it is without the food, nor is a gathering fully Christian worship without the Eucharist. Rolheiser likens it to God’s physical embrace. It is the tangible evidence of his presence and love. He observes how it intensifies our unity as the body of Christ. He also likens it to the new manna that becomes our daily bread. Like most Catholics, Rolheiser thinks John’s Gospel has a slightly different take than what the Synoptics teach on the Eucharist. Whereas Matthew, Mark, and Luke set it squarely in the context of the Last Supper, John’s Gospel doesn’t (though the Upper Room Discourse is clearly set at the Passover meal). John instead speaks more mystically about it in passages like John 6, where Jesus presents himself as the bread of life (I happen to agree with him here.)
That is why, too, in Roman Catholic spirituality, unlike much of Protestantism, the Eucharist has not generally been called “the Lord’s Supper,” since it was understood not as an extraordinary ritual to commemorate the Last Supper, but as an ordinary, ideally daily, ritual to give us sustenance from God. (p. 42f)
In another chapter, I love his take on the Eucharist as a family meal, both ordinary and special. He also shares some good nuances that even Protestants will appreciate when speaking of the Eucharist as a “sacrifice.” And there is a wonderful section that adds richness (and, I might add, ecumenical possibilities) to the idea of what “real presence” means in the light of the Passover term “remembrance.” I am still working through this book, but I recommend it to anyone who wants a thoughtful yet thoroughly devotional study of the Eucharist.
Both in what I did and in what I read, it was a good week at Gethsemani.
Then he went home, and the crowd gathered again, so that they could not even eat. And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for they were saying, “He is out of his mind.”…And his mother and his brothers came, and standing outside they sent to him and called him. And a crowd was sitting around him, and they said to him, “Your mother and your brothers are outside, seeking you.” And he answered them, “Who are my mother and my brothers?” And looking about at those who sat around him, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does the will of God, he is my brother and sister and mother.”
• Mark 3:31-35
• • •
Most Christians aren’t like Jesus.
Should we even try to be? Isn’t that impossible?
None of us can be like Jesus perfectly, but the Gospel of the Kingdom calls Jesus’ disciples to hear his call and set the goal and direction of their lives to be like him. For a follower of Jesus, Paul’s words of “follow me as I follow Christ,” are translated simply, “follow Christ in every way possible.”
Ghandi said “I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ.” He’s far from the only one to have made that observation, and those critics aren’t holding anyone to a standard of perfection. They are simply looking for enough congruence that the claim to be a follower of Jesus makes sense.
Christians have gotten very good at explaining why they really shouldn’t be expected to be like Christ. At various points, these explanations are true. At other points, they start sounding like winners in a competition for absurdist doublespeak.
Perhaps many Christians don’t resemble Jesus because they don’t really know what Jesus was like. Or- more likely- they assume Jesus was very much like themselves, only a bit more religious.
Getting our bearings on being like Jesus will start with something very important: discarding our assumption that our personal and collective picture of Jesus is accurate.
One of the constants in the Gospels is the misunderstanding of Jesus. The list of mistaken parties is long.
Herod the Great mistook Jesus for a political revolutionary.
The religious leaders mistook Jesus for another false Messiah.
Jesus’ family mistook him for a person who was “out of his mind.”
Nicodemus mistook Jesus for a wise teacher.
The rich young ruler mistook Jesus for a dispenser of tickets to heaven.
The woman at the well mistook Jesus for a Jewish partisan.
Herod Antipas mistook Jesus for John the Baptist back from the grave.
The people said that Jesus was a political messiah, Elijah, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.
The disciples….oh my. The disciples were certain Jesus was a political messiah/king who would bring the Kingdom through miracles, but just at the moment they were most certain of who and what Jesus was, he turned everything upside down. Only after the horror of the cross was past and the Spirit opened their minds and hearts to the truth did the disciples begin to see Jesus clearly.
Thomas mistook Jesus for a dead man.
Like the blind man in Mark 8, the disciples had partial, unclear sight that required a second touch for clarity.
I believe Judas misjudged Jesus. Saul the persecutor certainly did, as did Pilate and the Romans.
If you got all the people who misjudged Jesus into a room, you”d need a bigger room.
When our children were small, my son was a big fan of wrestling. Every wrestler has a “signature move” to end a match; a move that no one does exactly like they do.
When I read Mark 11 and the story of Jesus turning over the tables of the merchants and moneychangers, I believe Jesus’ “signature move” is turning over the tables of expectations about who he is and what it means to follow him.
Read back through the Biblical examples I’ve cited. In almost every instance, it’s Jesus who overturns the tables of expectations and preconceived notions. It’s not just a discovery by a seeker. Jesus is the initiator of the big surprises. Part of what it means to be a Jesus-follower is to have your notions of religion, life and God turned upside down by the rabbi from Nazareth.
So is Jesus like today’s Christians who so easily assume they know what Jesus is all about? I’d like to suggest that the answer is “No.” Jesus isn’t like today’s Christians at all, and a large portion of our failure of Christlikeness comes down to a failure to know what Jesus was like.
Do you like grape Kool-Aid? I’ve always loved the taste of grape Kool-Aid on a hot day.
Have you ever tasted grapes? Do grapes taste grape Kool-Aid?
No, they don’t. But you could easily imagine a child who loves grape Kool-Aid eating a grape and saying “Yuck!! This doesn’t taste like grapes at all!”
The real thing has been replaced by the advertised replacement so long that there’s genuine confusion and disappointment at the taste of a real grape.
So it is with Jesus. The version of Jesus that dominates so much contemporary Christianity is the grape Kool-Aid version of a real grape. And many, many Christians have no “taste” for Jesus as we find him in scripture, especially the Gospels.
Where would the real Jesus perform his “signature” move of turning over our popular misconception of him?
Here’s just a few tentative and preliminary suggestions.
Jesus wasn’t building an institution or an organization, but an efficient, flexible movement with the Gospel at the center and grace as the fuel.
The church Jesus left in history was more a “band of brothers (and sisters)” than an organization of programs and buildings.
The message at the heart of all Jesus said and did was the Kingdom of God, which implicitly included himself as King and the status of all the world as rebels in need of forgiveness and surrender.
The movement Jesus left behind was made up of the last, the lost, the least, the losers and the recently dead. The world would never recognize this Jesus shaped collection of nobodies as successful.
The Woman Caught in Adultery, Higgins
Jesus treated women, sexual sinners and notoriously scandalous sinners with inexplicable acceptance.
Jesus taught the message, power and presence of the Kingdom. He did not teach how to be rich, how to improve yourself, how to be a good person or how to be successful.
Jesus didn’t teach principles. He taught the presence of a whole new world where God reigns and all things are made right.
Jesus rejected the claims of organized religion to have an exclusive franchise on God, and embodied the proof that God was in the world by his Son and through his Spirit to whomever has faith in Jesus.
Jesus practiced radical acceptance in a way that was dangerous, upsetting and world-changing.
Jesus calls all persons to follow him as disciples in the Kingdom of God. This invitation doesn’t look identical to the experiences of the apostles, but the claims and commands of Jesus to his apostles extend to all Jesus-followers anywhere.
God is revealed in Jesus in a unique way. What God has to show us and to say to us is there in Jesus of Nazareth. All the fullness of God lives in him, and to be united to Jesus by faith is to have the fullness of all God’s promises and blessings.
Jesus didn’t talk much about how to get to heaven, and certainly never gave a “gospel presentation” like today’s evangelicals. Nor did he teach that any organization of earth controlled who goes to heaven.
Jesus never fought the culture war.
Jesus was political because the Kingdom of God is here now, but he was the opposite of the political mindset of his time as expressed in various parties and sects.
Jesus was radically simple in his spirituality.
Jesus was radically simple in his worship.
Jesus wasn’t an advocate of family values as much as he was a cause of family division.
Jesus fulfills the old testament scriptures completely, and they can not be rightly understood without him as their ultimate focus.
The only people Jesus was ever angry at was the clergy. He called out clergy corruption and demanded honesty and integrity from those who claimed to speak for God and lead his people.
Jesus embraced slavery and servanthood as the primary identifiers of the leaders of his movement.
Jesus didn’t waste his time with religious and doctrinal debates. He always moves to the heart of the matter. Love God, Love Neighbor, Live the Kingdom.
Jesus expected his disciples to get it, and was frustrated when they didn’t.
Jesus died for being a true revolutionary, proclaiming a Kingdom whose foundations are the City of God.
Does this sound like Jesus as you’ve encountered him in evangelicalism?
That’s the sound of tables turning over.
That’s the taste of a real grape, not the Kool-Aid.
Hello, all, and welcome to the weekend. Ready to Ramble?
1929 Rambler
We’re going to start with news from Russia that memes are now illegal. Well, not all memes, just those that feature a public character. Gee, I wonder what powerful public figure is tired of being made into a meme. [in Church Lady voice]: “Could it be……Putin?”
Yes, it seems his Royal Shirtlessness has decided his cheesy photo-ops are not to be laughed at any more. Well, too bad. This is America, Baby, and we do what we want here! My forefathers watered the ground with their blood to give me the freedom to meme, and I’m going to use it! In fact, we are going to dedicate the rest of the Ramblings to pissing off Putin. Whaddya say to that, Vladimir?
The NBA playoffs start today, and boy is there a changing of the guard. The Miami Heat, who won the East for the last four years, did not even make the playoffs, nor did the Pacers, the Thunder, or the Suns. The Lakers won barely a quarter of their games. Instead the teams to beat are the Hawks, Cavaliers, Raptors (!), and Golden State Warriors. Who are you rooting for, imonks?
Speaking of the NBA, apparently Stephen Curry just knocked down 77 three-point shots in a row! It was in practice, but still. Wow. I was going to mention that time I nailed four lay-ups in a row, but I changed my mind.
The NRA held its annual convention last weekend, and all the Republican hopefuls were falling over themselves in proclaiming their allegiance to guns, guns and more guns. Rick Santorum held up his concealed carry card before the audience and boasted that his wife requested ammunition for an upcoming birthday. Scott Walker talked about bow-hunting, while Mike Huckabee listed on stage the guns he grew up with, including his first BB gun at the age of five. Jeb Bush boasted of being an “NRA life member since 1986.” Ben Carson had to play defense. Some NRA types have grumbled about his statement in 2013 that people who live in large cities should avoid having semi-automatic weapons. Carson backtracked. And Ted Cruz, of course, topped them all by whipping out an Uzi and taking out the cameramen. Only one of those is made up.
Hillary announced her presidential candidacy last weekend, and unveiled the campaign logo: Yep. I’m not kidding. Someone on her staff is an absolute beast with Microsoft Paint. The reaction to the logo has been… not pleasant. Some suggested it looks like directions to a hospital. Or a hurricane evacuation. Others wondered why the logo for a democratic candidate highlights a huge red arrow pointing right. My own thoughts? Its dull, static, uninspiring, lifeless, and devoid of purpose. In other words, it fits her perfectly.
“Really, lady? Only 20 bucks for that logo I made you?”
Turns out not everyone loves Pope Francis. In Turkey, he’s about as popular as Obama at a KKK rally. Why? Because Francis dropped the G word in discussing the one-hundred year anniversary of the massacre of Armenians by the Turks: “In the past century, our human family has lived through three massive and unprecedented tragedies,” the Pope said at a Mass at with representatives of Armenia. “The first, which is widely considered ‘the first genocide of the 20th century,’ struck your own Armenian people.” Turkey responded by pulling their ambassador to the Vatican, and by calling his words, “unacceptable” and “out of touch with both historical facts and legal basis.” Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian rebuked Turkey. “We are in a situation in which Turkey speaks a different language from the rest of the international community and it seems that it doesn’t understand that it is speaking a different language.”
Annegret Raunigk of Germany has 13 children, but her youngest daughter, who is nine, wanted a little brother or sister. So Annegret is now expecting … 4 more. This is after a year and half of artificial insemination. Did I mention that Ms. Raunigk is 65 years old? Wait, what? A senior citizen giving birth to quadruplets? Annegret, do they not sell dolls over there?
Larry McElroy was outside his mother-in-law’s mobile home in Lee County, Georgia, on Sunday night when he decided to shoot an armadillo. No, I don’t know why. It’s conceivable that alcohol was involved. According to Leroy, the bullet bounced off the armadillo, hit a fence, went through the back door of the mobile home, then through a chair and struck his mother-in-law. Again, according to Leroy. Fortunately, 74-year-old Carol Johnson was not seriously hurt (though Christmas may be awkward this year). Officials are not considering filing any charges against McElroy, although they have recommended using different methods of armadillo removal in the future.
Armadillo 1, Larry 0
The new Star Wars trailer was released this week. Thoughts?
What do Steve Taylor, Michael Card, Twila Paris, Amy Grant, Keith Green, Steven Curtis Chapman, and BeBe and CeCe Winans have in common? They were all signed by Billy Ray Hearns, the man who shaped Christian music more than any other person in the 70’s through 90’s. Hearn died Wednesday, at age 85.
Michael Kimmel of Kentucky was arrested for a DUI this week. Or, more technically, an RUI. It seems Mr. Kimmel was arrested for drunk-riding a horse.
Kim Kardashian and Kanye West travelled to Israel so that their daughter, North West (nope, not kidding) could be baptized. “Kim Kardashian’s daughter will be baptized and become a Christian officially and a member of the Armenian church,” Archbishop Aris Shirvanian said. “All I know is that she’s a famous personality. I don’t know her in person. In any case she is welcome with her family.”
Did you know you can tell a person’s politics by the restaurant they choose? That is the claim made by a recent survey by Experian Marketing. This was reported after the Wall Street Journal fixated on Hillary’s campaign food with this headline: “Clinton Bypassed Centrist Taco Bell for Liberal Favorite Chipotle.” The WSJ even printed up the nice graphic below. Not sure where you fit in? You can find out if you are liberal or conservative by taking this seven-question survey of your restaurant choices.
Well, that’s it for this week. I will be on a road trip Saturday, so will not be able to respond much. As always, play nice.
And, hey, President Putin….ummmm, you know how to take a joke, right? I mean, didn’t you think some of them were a little funny?
Blogging through “The Lost World of Adam and Eve”
, p. 106f
The Internet Monk Archives 