Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don’t be afraid. I am with you.
• Frederick Buechner, Wishful Thinking
I had not planned on re-running this post, but I think our discussion on death before the Fall demands that we review it.
A common Christian viewpoint attributes all the world’s disharmony, chaos, trouble, evil and its consequences to Adam’s sin. I have come to think the Bible does not teach that. True, Romans 5:12 says, “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned…” However, this text only says that human death is the consequence of our forefather’s transgression. Furthermore, it is possible that it is speaking only of human death of a certain kind (more on that in posts to come).
You find nothing in this text about earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, accidents, plant and animal death, disease, or any other “natural” forms of “evil” in the world. You won’t find them explicitly in Genesis either. Is it possible that the chaotic and destructive aspects of life in creation, elements that we would have a difficult time defining as “good” (as in Genesis 1) find their source somewhere else?
The article I wrote last year discusses this. It suggests that the world Adam entered was not the “paradise” we imagine. The Garden in which he and Eve lived may have been an enclave protected from a harsher world around them. You can read it after the jump, but I also want to recommend a blog post on the same subject — “Death and Evil existed before the Fall” at Austin’s Blog. Both of us base our material on the teaching of Bruce Waltke, whose Genesis commentary and OT Theology cover this subject.
The interpretation of the creation narrative in Genesis 1 and the subsequent stories in Genesis 2-3 forms one of the battlegrounds in the current “creation wars.” However, the arguments go beyond Genesis. In fact, the stickiest issues grow out of the way the Apostle Paul makes use of the story of Adam in such passages as Romans 5 and 1Corinthians 15. And one of the most important involves the reality of death in the world and how we are to understand it in light of the Gospel.
I am working through the NT texts and will be posting on them later this week.
In the meantime, I want to refer you to an article by Daniel Harrell, former minister at Park Street Church in Boston, and now Senior Minister of the Colonial Church in Edina, Minnesota. He also has a PhD in developmental psychology and has show great interest in issues of science and faith. You can read his contributions and watch video conversations with him at BioLogos, and he authored the book, Nature’s Witness: How Evolution Can Inspire Faith.
On his blog, Harrell wrote a post called, “Evolution, Christianity, and Death.” It provides a good summary of the view that death existed before Adam’s sin and that this is compatible with an orthodox evangelical understanding of the fallen human condition and its remedy in Christ.
Before we dive into making comments about the “Historical Adam” controversy that the recent cover story in Christianity Today highlighted, I thought it would be good to review a couple of posts that we did last year. These are Bible studies of Genesis 2-3. I will reproduce them and update them here today. I encourage you to treat this as a Bible study, to read it with your Bible open so that you can ponder the Scriptures along with me, and even to take notes if that helps you grasp what is being taught.
This morning we start with our study on Genesis 2.
INTRODUCTION
Scholars sometimes speak of “two creation accounts“: Genesis 1:1-2:3 being the first and Genesis 2:4-25 the second. Although this may be technically accurate in the sense that two original stories about creation were joined together in the early part of Genesis, it does not recognize the structure of the book itself and the author’s purpose in putting these stories back to back.
The key to understanding how they complement each other is to step back and see the author’s way of organizing the entire story of Genesis. He does so by use of a phrase that is repeated twelve times throughout the book. This phrase always marks a new beginning, a new story, a new direction in the narrative that takes what came before and shows what happened to the family of the characters introduced in the previous narratives. The Hebrew word is “toledot” (often translated, “These are the generations of…”)
In the book there are twelve statements that begin with words like this, “Now these are the generations of…” (2.4, 5:1, 6:9, 10:1, 32, 11:10, 11:27, 25:12, 19, 36:1, 9 and 37:2). Each of these statements refers to a main character who has already been introduced. What follows each statement is either a listing of family names that trace his descendants, or a series of stories that tell us what became of this character and his family.
If you step back and look at the structure of the book in a bird’s eye view, you see how these statements organize the material and move its stories along.
The heavens and the earth are introduced (1.1-2.3)
These are the generations of the heavens and the earth (2.4-ch. 4)
…in which Adam and his family are introduced
These are the generations of Adam (5.1-6.8)
…in which Noah is introduced by a genealogy from Adam to Noah
These are the generations of Noah (6.9-ch. 9)
And so on. We might translate this phrase (Hebrew: toledot) as: “This is what became of ____________.” The material before this heading introduces the main character and the genealogies/narratives after it describe what happened in subsequent history to that character and his family.
So then, what do we read when we come to the end of the “creation” account in Genesis 1:1-2:3? “These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created.”In other words, starting with Genesis 2:5, the author is going to tell us what became of God’s good “creation” in Genesis 1. This is not a duplicate account, merely a view of “creation” from another perspective. This is a development in the story. The author is going to show us what happened to “God’s temple” that he erected in the first chapter, the temple in which he assigned humans to serve as his priestly representatives.
GENESIS 2-4: A DRAMA IN THREE ACTS
Another point often overlooked is that Genesis 2 does not stand alone. The next “toledot” does not occur until Genesis 5:1 (“This is what became of Adam,” i.e. the subsequent generations of his family). So the section that tells “what became of the heavens and the earth” actually covers Genesis chapters 2, 3, and 4. This is the whole story the author wants to tell, so it would be wrong to isolate Genesis 2 as some kind of “second creation story” without taking the entire context into consideration.
The next main section in Genesis after 1:1-2:3 runs from 2:4 through chapter 4, and contains three stories, all presented in similar form. Each contains a narrative that concludes with a speech, followed by a brief epilogue.
Creation of Man, Chagall
2:4 Introduction: First toledot
2:5-22 Narrative: The Garden
2:23 Speech: Author’s comment on marriage
2:24-25 Epilogue: Naked and not ashamed
3:1-13 Narrative: The Fall
3:14-19 Speech: God’s words of judgment
3:20-24 Epilogue: Exile from Eden
4:1-22 Narrative: Cain and Abel
4:23-24 Speech: Lamech’s appeal
4:25-26 Epilogue: Birth of Seth
Now let’s look at the text, section by section.
WHAT HAPPENED TO GOD’S GOOD CREATION(2:4)
Genesis 2:4 is the “door” that leads us into this section.
Chapter 1 described how God made the skies and the land, and formed a land of blessing with humans serving as his representatives.
Now, beginning in Gen 2:4, the Bible tells us “This is what came forth from the skies and the land,” i.e. what happened to God’s good creation.
The second part of 2:4 reverses “skies and land” — “when the Lord God made the land and the skies.” This emphasizes that the perspective of this story will be from the ground up rather than the more cosmic point of view expressed in chapter 1. In addition, the appearance of the covenant name of God (YHWH) and its use throughout this chapter brings attention to God not only as majestic Creator and King but also as the One who enters into relationship with his people.
THE LAND BEFORE THE FALL (2:5-6)
Though many think these verses merely describe the uncultivated state of the land before the creation of Adam, John Sailhamer points out that the picture looks forward rather than backward, describing what the land was like before the effects of sin came upon it.
Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground. (NASB)
God’s curse was not yet upon the land, for the plants (the “thorns and thistles” of 3:18) had not yet sprouted, the rain had not yet fallen (the rain of the Flood), and humans had not yet been exiled from the Garden “to work the land” (3:23). In contrast to the cursed land to come, the original land was fertile, generously watered by springs that irrigated it, promoting verdancy and abundance.
GOD CREATES ADAM (2:7)
Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. (NASB)
This concise statement of Adam’s creation contains a play on words that might be captured by translating it something like, “God formed “groundlings” of dust from the ground.” The verb introduces the metaphor of a potter working with clay to form something. The “living creatures” of 1:24 were brought forth from the earth as well, though God’s direct action was not specified there as it is here. What further sets “Groundling” apart from those animals here in ch. 2 is God breathing into him “the breath of life.”
The Bible consistently speaks of Adam as a real, historical person. There is no reason to think he is merely a literary or mythical (in the sense of non-historical) character that is introduced to make the author’s points. However, that does not mean that the description of his creation in this verse is “literal.” The author is recounting how God formed Adam in anthropomorphic terms.
This is common in Scripture. Job describes his own birth in a similar way:
Your hands fashioned and made me altogether,
And would You destroy me?
Remember now, that You have made me as clay;
And would You turn me into dust again? (Job 10:8-9)
As did David in Psalm 139:13-16…
David (ceramic), Chagall
For You formed my inward parts;
You wove me in my mother’s womb.
I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
Wonderful are Your works,
And my soul knows it very well.
My frame was not hidden from You,
When I was made in secret,
And skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth;
Your eyes have seen my unformed substance;
And in Your book were all written
The days that were ordained for me,
When as yet there was not one of them.
One might argue that those are poetic texts, unlike the historical narrative in Genesis. However, narrative can include figurative and metaphorical elements without sacrificing historical accuracy. James McKeown gives a wise warning about modern people reading ancient texts in his Genesis commentary:
The Bible is not written just for scholars, and therefore it may be understood by a clear, straightforward reading. However, what may have been a clear, straightforward reading to someone two or three thousand years ago may be different from our perceptions today. It may be our scientific minds that are causing the complications. (p. 313)
Was Adam the first human being?I personally don’t think the Bible requires us to take this position. In fact, the final act in this section of Genesis, the story of Cain and Abel, makes more sense if we recognize the presence of other humans on earth besides Adam and Eve. After Cain kills Abel and is sentenced to wander, he is afraid that others will hunt him down. He travels away from the land, moves east of Eden and settles in a community in Nod. There he takes a wife, has a family, and later builds a city of his own.
It is my view that Adam was the first representative man. He is the first of many with whom God graciously inaugurated a special relationship for the purpose of extending his blessing to the whole world. He was the “Adam” (groundling, human being) that God placed in the Garden to be his priest while the rest of “Adam” (all of humankind) dwelt outside the Garden.
Adam is the beginning of Israel, not humanity. I imagine this may require some explanation.
Israel’s history as a nation can be broken down as follows:
Israel is created by God at the exodus through a cosmic battle (gods are defeated and the Red Sea is divided);
The Israelites are given Canaan to inhabit, a lush land flowing with milk and honey;
They remain in the land as long as they obey the Mosaic law;
They persist in a pattern of disobedience and are exiled to Babylon.
Israel’s history parallels Adam’s drama in Genesis:
Adam is created in Genesis 2 after the taming of chaos in Genesis 1;
Adam is placed in a lush garden;
Law (not to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil) is given as a stipulation for remaining in the garden;
Adam and Eve disobey and are exiled.
The question in Genesis is whether Adam will be obedient to “the law” and stay in Eden, thus continuing this special relationship, or join the other adam outside in exile. This is the same question with Israel: after being created by God, will they obey and remain in the land, or disobey and be exiled?
LIFE IN THE KING’S GARDEN (2:8-25)
The LORD God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed. (Genesis 2:8, NASB)
Beginning at verse 8, the author describes:
The garden God planted in Eden (2:8-14)
Adam’s role and responsibility in the garden (2:15-17)
God’s provision of a partner for Adam (2:18-22)
Poetic speech: Adam’s response (2:23)
Epilogue: The gift of marriage (2:24-25)
The focus in this section is upon the Garden, the priestly calling of Adam, the two prominent trees and what they represent, and God’s threatened penalty for eating from the forbidden tree.
Adam and Eve (stained glass), Chagall
THE KING’S GARDEN (2:8-14)
The word “garden” refers to a “park” or a “botanical garden” of the kind that was common in royal temple or palace complexes in the ancient world. Solomon was renowned for his horticultural interests, and records show that the kings of Assyria, Babylon, and Persia had magnificent garden complexes. The most famous, the Hanging Gardens of Babylon, was one of the world’s seven wonders. “Eden” means “abundance.” In this lush, verdant location, God created a royal arboretum, fit for the King, furnished by his own hand.
Two trees stood out among all the attractive and bountiful trees in the garden: the Tree of Life, and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. More about these later.
The author mentions four rivers branching out and irrigating Eden. Two are known to us: the Tigris and Euphrates, which puts us in the Fertile Crescent of the Ancient Near East. Two are unknown: the Pishon and the Gihon. A clue in the description of the Gihon leads us west to the region of Egypt and Ethiopia. Thus, we are speaking of a region that stretches from Egypt to Mesopotamia.
A case can be made, therefore, that the Garden in Eden is an early name for the Promised Land. Later descriptions, such as Genesis 15:18 — “On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, ‘To your descendants I have given this land, from the river of Egypt as far as the great river, the river Euphrates,’ – reinforce this.
If Eden is the Promised Land, this supports John Sailhamer’s interpretation of Genesis 1, that the “six days of creation” do not describe the creation of planet earth, but the preparation of the Promised Land, the land of blessing, the land where God put his first covenant partners, to be his temple in the world. The “eretz” of ch. 1 is the Eden of chapter two, in which God planted his garden.
ADAM’S ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITY IN THE GARDEN (2:15-17)
Genesis 2:15 is an important verse that reflects back on the “image of God” in chapter one. The text says, literally, “Then the LORD God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden for serving and for keeping.” Most English versions think that these verbs point back to the Garden, “for working and keeping IT.” However, this is problematic grammatically, for “it” is feminine and the word “garden” is masculine. Sailhamer therefore translates, “to worship and obey.”
If this is accurate, it means that Adam is portrayed here as a priest, not a gardener. This interpretation is further supported by the verb “to put.” It could be literally rendered, “to cause to rest” or “to dedicate,” and it is used to speak of the consecration of priests in the Torah. God “putting” Adam in the Garden therefore signifies that God set Adam apart (like a priest) by situating him in his own royal temple-garden and calling him to worship and keep God’s Word.
It is God’s Word (Law) that we next hear. Adam may eat freely of any tree (including the Tree of Life), but he is commanded not to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. In the context of creation, we can get some idea of what these trees represented.
Genesis 1 depicts God as the One who blesses humankind by providing what is “good (tov). At first, the land was tohu wabohu(1:2 — a formless wasteland). But God turns tohu to tov. When Genesis 1 says repeatedly, “And God saw that it was good,” we may understand the verb “to see” in the sense of “to provide.” Day after day, God “saw to it” that what he did would be good for his world and creatures.
God alone knows what is “good” and what is “evil” for his creatures. The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil represents the opportunity for humankind to seek this wisdom autonomously, apart from God and his revealed Word. What God, in effect, is telling Adam is: “Trust in the Lord with a whole heart; do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways know him, and he will make your paths straight” (Proverbs 3:5-6).
God warns Adam that if he eats from the forbidden tree, on that very day he will die. Would this threatened consequence have meant anything to Adam?
Those who hold certain creationist positions hold that there was no death in the world before the Fall, and that when sin was introduced into the world, not only humans but also animals began to die, that the processes of corruption and decay throughout nature had their onset.
Those who think the earth is old, including people who accept the model of biological evolution, say there was most certainly death before the fall. For example, Jim Snoke in his book, A Biblical Case for an Old Earth, says: “the language of the curse of Genesis 3:14-24 does not indicate a complete change of the physical world, but rather an exile into a pre-existing outer darkness” — the world that surrounded the garden, a world where animals died, where the sea and darkness and sea monsters represented danger and threat, where, if there were other people besides Adam and Eve in the world, they died too. Snoke argues that the presence of such darkness and death would have been a visible illustration to Adam of God’s warning.
Adam and Eve, Chagall
One thing is clear: Adam and Eve were mortal when God created them. We may have this picture in our minds that they were perfect or even immortal people, placed in a pristine Paradise, who subsequently fell from that state and became corrupt and mortal. Genesis actually pictures them as children in a nascent state who were mortal, naive, and vulnerable to sin from the beginning, needing God’s wisdom and provision to thrive and prosper. They could not have eternal life unless they ate from the Tree of Life (Gen 3:22). They were susceptible to physical death from the start.
However, as we will see when we look at Genesis 3, if God meant they would suffer immediate “physical death” when they ate the forbidden fruit, it did not come to pass. The record says that Adam did not die physically for nearly a millennium! We may conclude that God’s threat to Adam concerned some other form of death. What we see is that they experienced exile from God’s temple, God’s good land. On the day the couple ate from the banned tree, their relationships with God, one another, and creation was forever altered. They were cast from the Garden. They entered the world and joined the darkness. The “Adam” of the Garden joined the “Adam” of the world and became like the rest of humankind.
AN EXAMPLE OF “THE GOOD”
We won’t take time to discuss the latter part of this chapter, except to say that God’s provision of Eve for Adam represents an example of the “good” that God sees to for his creatures. A partner, crafted as a perfect complement to Adam, God brings the woman to man through a mysterious process that helps the man understand that this is his true counterpart.
The image of God, male and female (1:27), is explicated through this story. One becomes two and then the two become one. Eastern church theology speaks of “perichoresisâ” the mutual embrace, interpenetration, and intimate oneness of the members of the Godhead. God’s greatest creation gift, marriage, pictures this oneness.
Last month, at Easter, my family and I joined the Catholic Church. Each of us would phrase our reasons for doing so somewhat differently, but here are a few of mine. I offer them not to preach or gloat, just to share a decision faced by quite a few of us in the post-evangelical wilderness.
When my husband and I told Chaplain Mike, who is an old friend, that we had begun going to the Catholic Church, Mike said, “Well, I’m glad you’ve found a place that feels like home.” My husband immediately responded, “No, we’ve found a place that feels like church!” Our parish gathers in silence and prayer, focuses on the Bible and the Eucharist, and conducts itself with joyful solemnity through the liturgy.
I like the liturgy of the Catholic Church. Liturgy means “the work of the people.” Liturgical worship is not the work of the leader; it is not a spectator sport, or a concert, or a pep rally. Liturgy reminds us of our place in the scheme of things. I am not in charge. I am a servant and an heir to the faith that has been handed down to me. The priest himself is the servant of the liturgy, not its boss.
So my family and I feel security in knowing that a new pastor is not going to change entirely what we had known as good. There will be changes, but the essential things will remain the same. We did not experience this security in the shifting world of evangelicalism.
On a Facebook status update today, John Michael Talbot wrote: “The Ascension is not really a departure. It is entering into a new more dynamic manner of presence beyond the bounds of ordinary space and time. It is the assurance that Jesus is with us always during the ministry He gives unto the end of the age, and a hope for the age to come.”
I like that a lot. Jesus is not gone, not absent, not separated from us. He is with us in a new and different way. Moreover, this “new, more dynamic manner of presence” involves him being over us as exalted Lord. As the Apostle Paul affirms:
I also pray that you will understand the incredible greatness of God’s power for us who believe him. This is the same mighty power that raised Christ from the dead and seated him in the place of honor at God’s right hand in the heavenly realms. Now he is far above any ruler or authority or power or leader or anything else — not only in this world but also in the world to come. God has put all things under the authority of Christ and has made him head over all things for the benefit of the church. And the church is his body; it is made full and complete by Christ, who fills all things everywhere with himself. (Ephesians 1:19-23, NLT)
One of the reasons I love N.T. Wright’s Surprised by Hope so much is that it contains an entire chapter about the Ascension and its significance. That’s a rarity, but Wright warns us that without this event we are missing something crucial in our Christian understanding and practice.
What happens when you downplay or ignore the ascension? The answer is that the church expands to fill the vacuum. If Jesus is more or less identical with the church — if, that is, talk about Jesus can be reduced to talk about his presence within his people rather than his standing over against them and addressing them from elsewhere as their Lord, then we have created a high road to the worst kind of triumphalism. …and the other side of triumphalism is of course despair. If you put all your eggs into the church-equals-Jesus basket, what are you left with when, as Paul says…we ourselves are found to be cracked earthenware vessels?
• Surprised by Hope, p. 112
This is exceedingly wise and provocative. Jesus is with us, yes. But Jesus is also over us, seated at the right hand of the Father in heavenly places, Head of his Church and Lord of all. There is no room for either triumphalism or despair. Instead, as Paul reminds us in Ephesians 1, there is authority and power and hope and fullness for his people who serve as heaven’s ambassadors in the world. We represent the King! He communicates the resources of his Kingdom to us through the Spirit who produces the fruit of love in our lives. And he communicates his presence through Word and Sacrament, those “holy places” in this world where the “heavenlies” intersect with our lives in space and time.
O Almighty God, whose blessed Son our Savior Jesus Christ ascended far above all heavens that he might fill all things: Mercifully give us faith to perceive that, according to his promise, he abides with his Church on earth, even to the end of the ages; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, in glory everlasting. Amen.
“So, is the Adam and Eve question destined to become a groundbreaking science-and-Scripture dispute, a 21st-century equivalent of the once disturbing proof that the Earth orbits the sun? The potential is certainly there: the emerging science could be seen to challenge not only what Genesis records about the creation of humanity but the species’s unique status as bearing the “image of God,” Christian doctrine on original sin and the Fall, the genealogy of Jesus in the Gospel of Luke, and, perhaps most significantly, Paul’s teaching that links the historical Adam with redemption through Christ (Rom. 5:12-19; 1 Cor. 15:20-23, 42-49; and his speech in Acts 17).”
• Richard N. Ostling, Christianity Today, June 3, 2011
Creation through a gradual process is not a hypothesis that emerges from a peripheral scientific sub-discipline. To show it wrong would involve overturning principles that independently lie at the very core of the findings of most of the natural science disciplines. True, they all together cry out in unison with a loud voice—“Created!†However, they also, in a subtle, but persuasive whisper, add the all-important qualifying phrase—“…slowly and not in an instant!â€
• BioLogos Blog, May 31, 2011
As we have been saying for some time, the secular world will not and cannot accept even the possibility of a young earth, because then they could not even postulate the idea of evolution. They require an incomprehensible amount of time to propose evolutionary beliefs. That is why the secular world use terms like “anti-science,†“anti-intellectual,†and “anti-academic†for those who reject billions of years and accept a young universe. And sadly, that is why so many Christian academics give in to the secular world—they want to be seen as academically respectable in the eyes of the world. (The research detailed in our book, Already Compromised, documents that the majority of Christian academics in Christian colleges believe in an old earth and universe.)
Note that if the billions of years is not true and the universe is only a few thousands of years old, then this debate about a literal Adam and Eve is over! It is so obvious from Scripture that God created a literal Adam and Eve—this is vital to the Christianity and an understanding of the Fall and why God’s Son became our Savior.
• Ken Ham, “I Agree with the Atheists!”
Creation of Adam, Uccello
As the weather starts to heat up, it seems that the creation wars do too. It happened last year at this time (see last June’s Archives), and it’s bound to happen this year again. In 2010, it was Albert Mohler and John MacArthur vs. BioLogos. Currently, it is Christianity Today running its June 3 cover story, “The Search for the Historical Adam,” and the turmoil that is likely to ensue.
You know we are going to talk about this, right?
As I get my thoughts together over the next few days, here are some of the pertinent articles that have been published in recent days for you to review:
As you read these articles (and if you know of others to recommend, please pass them on to us), give us your initial thoughts. Those with more conservative views are surely warning, “There it is—another domino falling!” Some predict that this will be the issue or at least one of the issues that may “produce a huge split right through the heart of conservative, orthodox, historic Christianity” (Michael Cromartie). CT’s article calls for a discussion that goes beyond knee-jerk reactions, and that is what I would like to have here.
Where is your thinking right now with regard to this matter?
Our rambler-in-chief is visiting his family in Ohio this week, so Saturday Ramblings duties have fallen to me, Adam Palmer. Four months ago I was curled up by the fire while two feet of snow fell outside. Today I am curling up from the fiery heat while, uh… putting my two feet into snow… cones? I kinda lost the handle on that bit of wordplay, probably because my hands are full of some flotsam and jetsam I collected on the internet this week. Shall we ramble?
This time one week ago, the ultra-vulgar comedy The Hangover Part II was on its way to an $86 million weekend at the American box office, landing at #2 on the all-time list of weekends for R-rated movies. The irony here is that the previous holder of that record was… The Passion of the Christ. Surely this means something? I’ll leave it to you to sort that out.
Who knew altruism could be logical? I’ll tell you who: Yasuteru Yamada, that’s who. This 72-year-old retired Japanese engineer thought it through and realized that he and his fellow senior citizens should be the ones cleaning up the Fukushima nuclear plant. He says, “I am 72 and on average I probably have 13 to 15 years left to live… Even if I were exposed to radiation, cancer could take 20 or 30 years or longer to develop. Therefore us older ones have less chance of getting cancer.”
UPDATE: This just in. Gangsta Joe Boysel has joined the conversation. He said something about being out on a “job.” Not sure what that means, but he looked much more relaxed than the last time I saw him. Take a few minutes, even if you’ve already read the original post, and hear what Pastor Joe has to say.
As we post some comments from our Gangstas this month, we welcome a new contributor to the smoke-filled room. He is Monsignor Paul Koetter, a priest here in one of Indianapolis’ fine Catholic churches. The church is in a parish where I have many patients, and I can witness to the vibrancy of their community and the wonderful pastoral care that parish members receive. I recently attended a funeral service at his church, and was so impressed by his ability to teach and explain the various parts of the mass that I asked him to join our gang for these discussions. I’m grateful he agreed to at least give it a try—he is a busy man after all. Thanks, Father Paul!
TODAY’S QUESTION: The Memorial Day weekend marks the beginning of summer and the season of leisure and recreation for most Americans. What do you do for leisure and recreation? How do the concepts of “enjoyment,” “pleasure,” “leisure,” and “fun” fit in your theological thinking? How does your church tradition teach you to think about and approach this aspect of life?
Martha of Ireland took us on a short, fun ride through the lives of some of the more colorful Popes this morning. Now she explores the role of Pope in history, as well as the reason we have Popes. I am always enlightened when I read what Martha shares, but this is something the Holy Spirit is working deep into my heart. My hope is that it will challenge and encourage you as well.
At this point, you’re probably saying, “Good God almighty, woman, this is the perfect reason why the office of the Papacy is a travesty!â€Â Well, to all those of you who say “Catholics have a Pope†– with the corollary, overt or implied, “And we don’t†– I’d just like to say “Oh yes you do, and his name is Paul.â€Â Every time I’ve followed a recommended link to a preacher or minister on justification or what have you, it’s all Galatians this and Corinthians that. For every one time I’ve seen “Jesus says in Matthew…†or “John’s Gospel tells us…â€, I’ve seen ten or more “Paul says…â€. You may call ’em Epistles, but you treat ’em like Encyclicals.
And now that I’ve insulted the 98% of the readership that aren’t Episcopalian…
My oh my. I ask Martha to consider writing something on the papacy and she delivers posts that have me both laughing until my sides hurt, and rejoicing in our incredible sovereign God. In Part One, Martha takes a merry romp thru the history of some of the more, shall we say, colorful Popes over the centuries. This afternoon, she will lead us in looking at the papacy as an instrument of history—and why we need a Pope in the first place. Prepare to be astounded as always as we visit with Martha of Ireland.
One thing everybody knows about Catholicism is that we have a Pope. And everybody knows what the Pope does, don’t they? That’s right: the Pope gets up in the morning, puts on his big hat, and spends his day:
Trampling on the rights of conscience, particularly when it comes to hounding and persecuting poor, victimised theologians like Charles Curran, who has to keep body and soul together by scratching out a living teaching at some obscure little Nowheresville college called the Southern Methodist University of Dallas (I’ve never heard of it, have you?) and Hans Küng, who has been silenced so effectually that we never hear anything from him at all anymore ever
Scheming to take over the world (possibly, though not always, in league with at least one of the following: the Jesuits, the Freemasons, the New World Order, the International Jewish Conspiracy, the Communists, the Fascists, Opus Dei, liberal left-wing Catholics, conservative right-wing Catholics, so-called “Protestants†other than my own Truly True sect, Buddhists, Muslims, atheists, the Mafia, trades unions, Big Government, the World Bank and the President of the United States of America regardless of party affiliation. Sometimes he’s in league with several seemingly-opposed groups at once, but that just shows how sneaky he is)
Oppressing women
Oppressing GLBT people
Oppressing everyone else who isn’t a Catholic
Oppressing everyone who is a Catholic beneath the iron fist of his tyranny if they dare exercise their free conscience (see the first point on this list)
Polishing his hooves while waiting for the call to throw off his disguise and reveal himself as the Anti-Christ
Seeking to do away with the pure Gospel and replace it with paganism and the fond inventions of foolish men
Committing genocide in Africa because he would prefer millions to die of AIDs rather than overturn “Humanae Vitae†and also because he’s just that evil (see above re: the Anti-Christ)
Personally running the Inquisition and overseeing the torture of heretics in the dungeons beneath the Palace of the Holy Office (oh, sure, they renamed it the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, but as every newspaper article likes to point out when discussing the current Bishop of Rome, Cardinal Ratzinger was the Prefect of the Congregation before he was Pope – and are we supposed to believe that he really gave up the job?)
Generally rubbing his hands together in evil glee, cackling maniacally, and kicking puppies (though the present Successor of the Fisherman is fond of cats, so kittens are probably safe)
By Chaplain Mike
so much is that it contains an entire chapter about the Ascension and its significance. That’s a rarity, but Wright warns us that without this event we are missing something crucial in our Christian understanding and practice.
The Internet Monk Archives 