Things That Make You Go "Hmmm."

I was talking with some colleagues about illegal immigration and got to wondering about something. The poem on the Statue of Liberty reads as follows:

Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door.

I wonder, how many tired, poor, huddled, wretched, tempest-tossed people have the time it takes to go through the proper channels to come here legally?

UPDATE: I've been thinking some more about this. It seems that the poem on the Statue of Liberty does not express the genuine sentiment of most people in this country. We don't want poor, tired, wretched, homeless people. We don't want the refuse that other countries toss aside. We want rich, vibrant, educated people who will work hard to increase our economy.

Jesus must be so proud of us.

Do Unto Others Before They Can Do It Unto You

I haven't had much time to blog this week, but I heard this and had to say something.

From our president:

The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction -- and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack. To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively.

This is like me saying that if I think someone who doesn't like me is planning to do me some harm--even if it's just a rumor, I can go over to his house and take him out before he can hurt me.

Yesterday afternoon I heard part of an interview on NPR in which a Catholic priest, a person who calls himself a Christian, advocated this doctrine. I was sickened by what I heard. You can listen to the entire interview here.

How long will it be before the government uses this doctrine against its own citizens?

If You Own a Horse (Or Cow, Or Goat, Or Chicken. . .), The Government Wants to Know

Before you buy your little girl that horse she’s been wanting, consider the paperwork that will soon be involved. Actually, the government wants to keep track of all farm-type animals—horses, cows, chickens, pigs, llamas, etc.—regardless of whether you own several or only one. The United States Department of Agriculture's National Animal Identification System will soon (by Jan. 2008) require that anyone who owns any type of farm animal register his or her premises (or home) as a place where farm animals are kept (you will have to submit GPS coordinates for the place that the animal lives), and owners will then be required to register each animal and have it implanted with an RFID chip. Any time that the animal is moved to another location—selling it, taking it on a trail ride, taking it to a 4-H show, taking it to the slaughterhouse to kill it for food, etc.—the owner will have to file the necessary paperwork with the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

From the USDA-NAIS website:

In April 2004, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced the framework for implementing the NAIS—an animal identification and tracking system that will be used in all States and that will operate under national standards. When fully operational, the system will be capable of tracing a sick animal or group of animals back to the herd or premises that is the most likely source of infection. It will also be able to trace potentially exposed animals that were moved out from that herd or premises. The sooner animal health officials can identify infected and exposed animals and premises, the sooner they can contain the disease and stop its spread.

[ . . . ]

The first step in implementing the NAIS is identifying and registering premises that house animals. Such premises would include locations where livestock and poultry are managed, marketed, or exhibited. Knowing where animals are located is the key to efficient, accurate, and cost–effective epidemiologic investigations and disease–control efforts.

[ . . . ]

As premises are registered, another component of the NAIS—animal identification—will be integrated into the system. Unique animal identification numbers (AINs) will be issued to individually identified premises. In the case of animals that move in groups through the production chain—such as swine and poultry—the group will be identified through a group/lot identification number (Group/Lot IDs) [emphasis mine].

For every animal owned, the owner would have to register (for a fee) that animal and obtain a unique ID number for each. However, “[a]nimals that move in groups through the production chain” could be registered together with only one number, creating a substantial savings to the owner. These particular animals would be those born and raised on corporate farms (i.e. ConAgra, Tyson, etc.) and which remain grouped together from birth on the farm to death in the slaughterhouse. Obviously, small farms such as those operated by people who wish to raise their own beef or eggs will be exposed to a huge financial burden to the gain of the large corporate farms. And even if you are raising animals just for pleasure rather than food—such as owning a horse for occasional riding—you will be strapped with the extra burden of providing paperwork for every time that you take that horse on a ride off of your property.

This program has deep implications. Obviously, the large corporations will be in favor of any program that makes the consumer more dependent on them. If you are a person who likes to raise your own organic beef or who prefers eggs from the free range chickens that your neighbor raises, you will pay for that privilege. Big Brother is becoming much too big.

Not Chugging Beer at the Beach

This week is Spring Break, and today I'll finish grading a set of essays, and then later this week, I'll do my taxes. But at least I'm not at work for a week.

It's Time for a Book Burning

No, I'm not talking about censorship--I need some heat!

It is 63 degrees in my office. I know this because I brought a thermometer with me to find out just exactly how cold it is. 63 degrees doesn't sound so bad, and it wouldn't be if I were outside. However, right now I am in my office trying to type handouts and grade essays. I am running a space heater (that's the only reason it's 63 degrees in here), and I'm wearing a quilted down throw over my lap. I am refraining from putting my coat back on until I just can't stand it any longer. I would put on gloves to keep my fingers nimble (typing and writing is quite the challenge), but then it would be impossible to write or type.

I'm sure you are thinking that this is a temporary problem that will be better tomorrow; however, that is not the case. It is always cold in here. In fact, it stays so cold that I run the space heater even in August. To complain does no good. The pipes in this building are old; heat will never reach the cold dungeon deep in the bowels of Old Main.

I guess I should look on the bright side. I can leave a tuna sandwich out on my desk all day without any fear of it spoiling, and I'll have a refuge when global warming gets really bad.

Bloggers, News Informers, and Enemies

On 7 Feb. 2006 in a U.S. Senate Judiciary hearing on wartime executive power, Senator Lindsey Graham made these statements to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales:

The FISA statute, in a time of war, is a check and balance. But here's where I think I'm your biggest fan. During the time of war, the administration has the inherent power, in my opinion, to surveil the enemy and to map the battlefield electronically -- not just physical, but to electronically map what the enemy is up to by seizing information and putting that puzzle together.

And the administration has not only the right, but the duty, in my opinion, to pursue fifth column movements.

And let me tell folks who are watching what a fifth column movement is. It is a movement known to every war where American citizens will sympathize with the enemy and collaborate with the enemy. And it's happened in every war.

And President Roosevelt talked about, "We need to know about fifth column movements."

So my friends on the other side, I stand by this president's ability, inherent to being commander in chief, to find out about fifth column movements, and I don't think you need a warrant to do that.

Graham went on to say, however, that when such information seems to implicate individual citizens, the administration must not be allowed to persue investigations independently without judicial oversight.

What constitutes, for Mr. Graham and those who think along the same lines, a “fifth column” movement? When the War on Terror (now being referred to by the Pentagon as “The Long War”) began, the President said that “You’re either for us, or you’re against us.” The attitude of the war supporters has been that those who speak against the war are undermining the mission and placing our troops in danger. Does a “fifth column” include only those who, as Graham said, “sympathize with the enemy and collaborate with the enemy,” or does that definition also include those who don’t sympathize with terrorists but genuinely oppose war or disagree with the President's policies?

Here are some highlights of a speech given 17 Feb. 2006 by Donald Rumsfeld at the Council on Foreign Relations in which he outlines the need for the military to engage in more effective communications within the various media:

Our federal government is really only beginning to adapt our operations to the 21st century. For the most part, the U.S. government still functions as a five and dime store in an eBay world. Today we’re engaged in the first war in history—unconventional and irregular as it may be—in an era of e-mails, blogs, Blackberrys, Instant Messaging, digital cameras, a global Internet with no inhibitions, cell phones, hand-held videocameras, talk radio, 24-hour news broadcasts, satellite television. There’s never been a war fought in this environment before.

[ . . . ]

The growing number of media outlets in many parts of the world still have relatively immature standards and practices that too often serve to inflame and distort, rather than to explain and inform. And while al Qaeda and extremist movements have utilized this forum for many years and have successfully further poisoned the Muslim’s public view of the West, we in the government have barely begun to compete in reaching their audiences.

[ . . . ]

What complicates the ability to respond quickly is that, unlike our enemies, which propagate lies with impunity with no penalty whatsoever, our government does not have the luxury of relying on other sources for information—anonymous or otherwise. Our government has to be the source, and we tell the truth.

[ . . . ]

We need to get better at engaging experts from both within and outside of government to help communicate, to rapidly deploying the best military communications capabilities to new theaters of operation, developing and executing multifaceted media campaigns—print, radio, television and Internet. But let there be no doubt: The longer it takes to put a strategic communication framework into place, the more we can be certain that the vacuum will be filled by the enemy and by news informers that most assuredly will not paint an accurate picture of what is actually taking place.

Does Donald Rumsfeld consider those bloggers who oppose the war and/or criticize the Bush administration's policies to be “news informers” who are not not telling the truth—unlike our government who always tells the truth? Are the people who vocally disagree with the President’s policies the same people that Bush said are “against us”? Does putting a “strategic communication framework into place” simply mean being louder than the enemy, or does it mean going so far as to silence all opposing views?

How long will it be before those who have the “wrong” opinions are considered enemy sympathizers who need to be silenced or even punished for their views?

Free Speech is Going to Become Costly

Today I'm back in class teaching my students about proper documentation of sources. I'm very meticulous about this, and those who don't follow instructions to give proper credit to borrowed material will not receive a good grade on their essays. During the last few class periods I have spent most of the time on technical aspects of writing essays. That's not nearly as fun as discussing controversial issues--something we do periodically to help with our argumentative strategies.

Lately, however, class discussions have not been fun for me. We had a discussion in one of my classes last week that resulted in one student having her feelings hurt, and in fact, this could have turned into a serious situation if she had decided to complain to the administration. I don't think I or any of my students did or said anything wrong, but the fact is that in this day and age, people who get their feelings hurt can cause problems for other people who meant no harm. I thank God that that didn't happen this time.

But the thought stays with me that one day it could happen. And that makes me very nervous. Because I allow students to voice their opinions--whether they are "good" opinions or not--I could be held responsible for the content of those opinions. The university was always known as a place where free speech is valued, but society today has made the free expression of ideas very difficult. If you know "what's good for you," you'll keep your mouth shut and your opinions to yourself when you're at a public university.

And it's only a matter of time before we start getting into trouble for expressing our opinions in our blogs.

Good Books but no Coffee

Today I am enjoying a quiet afternoon at the library. My classes are meeting here today and tomorrow so that I can help them with research, so I thought I'd just have my office hours over here too. I'm getting a lot of work done, but the Starbucks downstairs is calling my name begging me to come and buy an overpriced latte. I am trying very hard to resist. Knowing that I'll have to pack up my stuff and carry it with me to keep it from being stolen is a good incentive to stay put for a while. I sure wish we could have coffee in the main part of the library.

Sacrifice and Daily Bread

For the past few weeks in BSF we have been discussing Abraham and his faith in God. This week we looked at the famous incident in which God tested Abraham’s faith by telling Abraham to offer his son on the altar as a sacrifice. Abraham, in his faith, obeyed God, and God stopped Abraham before he was able to take the knife to his son. God then provided a ram for Abraham to offer on the altar in the place of his son. Abraham was overjoyed by the turn of events and gave God a new name, Jehovah-Jireh, God who provides.

God had made a promise to Abraham to make him the founder of a great nation, to make him famous, and to bless him so that Abraham would be a blessing to others. He had also promised to fulfill this promise through Abraham’s own offspring. Abraham had great confidence in God’s willingness to follow through on this promise even in the prospect of the death of his son, and he was willing to give up the only visible means of the fulfillment of the promise because God had proven himself faithful to Abraham before.

Jesus teaches us that we also can depend upon God to follow through with his promises for us. In Jesus’ sermon on the mount, he teaches his listeners about kingdom behavior and what it means to be a citizen of God’s kingdom. To Jesus, to obey God’s laws means more than a simple adherence to a set of statutes; it means more than simply not doing wrong to others; rather, it means cultivating a desire to go beyond treating others with civility to developing a real concern for the needs of others. It means showing a genuine love to all regardless of who they are. Jesus promises his listeners that those who obey these laws of God will find themselves to be great in God’s kingdom. In addition to this, to those who adhere to this teaching, Jesus promises rest from their weary and burdensome life. He tells us that we no longer need to worry about matters of everyday living such as where our next meal will come from or what we will wear. Jesus says that if we seek to be righteous by following God’s precepts, if we make God’s kingdom the main concern of our hearts and minds, God will meet these daily needs.

Most of us would readily admit that we do not have the type or intensity of faith that Abraham exhibited. Indeed, most of us have not cultivated the faith to take Jesus at his word about this promise from God. Sure we have faith that we will enjoy a better life when Jesus returns, but we don’t take Jesus at his word that we don’t have to have any worries about our future during this lifetime. Jesus said plainly that if we have God’s kingdom as our primary concern—if we go about practicing kingdom behavior now in this lifetime—we will have no need to worry about tomorrow. What does that really mean? I think it’s safe to say that as we go about our daily lives doing our regular work, if we make it our additional job each day to make the concerns of other people higher than our own concerns and if we take concrete steps to bring comfort to others (as the good Samaritan man did), God will see to it that we will have our daily needs met.

When God’s people wandered in the desert after fleeing slavery in Egypt, God provided bread for them daily, and he wouldn’t allow them to store more than what they needed for each day. God’s people learned to have faith that the bread would come every morning. Jesus taught his disciples to pray “Give us this day our daily bread,” not “Give us enough bread to last a year.” Don’t worry about tomorrow, Jesus says, because we have enough to be concerned about just dealing with today’s problems. God knows what you need, and if you practice kingdom behavior now, God will take care of those needs; you don’t need to worry about it.

Most of us are extremely concerned about our futures. If we were really honest, we would admit that providing for our own future security, and our children’s security, is the main factor that governs how we live our lives each day. As an example, we work extremely hard to ensure financial security for our future, making sure that our children’s college fund is fully established and fully funding our 401k’s. We call this being prudent, and certainly, the bible advocates the need to make preparations for future hardships such as storing up food from the harvest for the winter (taking a lesson from the ants: Proverbs 6.6-8) or as when Joseph stockpiled grain to get his people through the upcoming famine. We certainly should exercise the common sense that God gave us and prepare for the needs of the immediate future. And certainly, God doesn’t frown upon our saving for retirement. However, like Abraham, we should be prepared to offer as a sacrifice the visible means of our future comfort and security when we see that others are in need.

If we believe that God will provide for our needs, then it shouldn’t alarm us to give up the security that we sought to provide for ourselves. To sacrifice his son meant to Abraham that the future God had promised was in jeopardy, but he trusted God enough that he went ahead and made the sacrifice and believed that somehow God would replace what was lost. In the same manner, we should have enough faith to believe that God will replace what we sacrifice in an effort to bring aid and comfort to others. God will give us what we need for today, and he’ll give us what we need for tomorrow when tomorrow gets here.

Happy Birthday to Me

Today I am now closer to the age of 50 than to the age of 20. That's sort of scary to think about, but when I really consider it, I don't really feel completely like a grown-up. Does one ever feel completely grown up? In a way, I sort of hope not.

Response to ajmac

The following is a response to a comment by ajmac to my previous post, "Real Freedom." Ajmac said:

Your sarcasm is neither persuasive nor funny. What do Christians in other countries have to do with it?

I'm curious: Do you disagree that American Christians experience freedom in the temporal sense to a far greater degree than any Christians throughout history?

Thank you for visiting, ajmac. My post was not meant to be funny. I think I assume correctly when I say that the regular readers of my blog knew exactly what I was talking about.

As for your questions, Christians in other countries have everything to do with it. It seems that many American Christians equate the flag and the U.S. with Christian values. While I certainly don't disagree with being patriotic, I believe it is rather arrogant to assert that the values represented by the flag are equal to the values represented by the cross, which is what the window sticker I referenced seems to do.

In the church where I attend bible study, there was a display of the flag and the bible side by side with the words "I pledge allegiance" written above the display. How must that look to Christians from other countries who may happen to attend that church? That display and the sticker seem to send a distorted message about American Christians--that we place equal value on Christian values and the flag. Brotherhood with Christians from other nations takes a backseat to allegiance to the flag, it seems.

As for your second question, of course I don’t disagree that American Christians experience more temporal freedoms than other Christians. We American Christians are free to speak out against the church or the government when we believe them to be in the wrong. We are free to come and go as we please, and we enjoy tremendous economic freedom, much more so than people in other nations. Is this, however, the true freedom that Jesus spoke of? Jesus said that those who obey his teachings are the ones who are truly free.

It is obvious from Jesus’ teachings that he did not endorse the accumulation of material wealth, but this is a “freedom” that many Americans enjoy. However, how free are we really if we have lots of stuff but our credit cards are maxed out and we have to work overtime to pay for it? How are we truly free if what we are working so hard for can be destroyed in the next hurricane or fire or tornado? When we lose these things, we begin work all over again to get more of them. How is that true freedom? And for those whose economic situation will not allow them to accumulate things but everything in our society says that we don’t fit in if we don’t have all the latest gadgets, how is that true freedom?

Jesus said that his yoke is easy and his burden is light and that those who trust completely in God and make his kingdom their primary concern will not have to worry about having their temporal needs met, yet American Christians’ yoking of the flag with the cross indicates that we do not really trust in God and that many of us treasure the temporal more than the eternal.

Real Freedom

Yesterday I saw a car with a sticker on it that made me sort of angry. The sticker had an American flag on it, and superimposed on top of the flag was the cross. Underneath the flag in small letters, it said "God Bless America," and underneath that in large block letters were the words "REAL FREEDOM."

I thought that real freedom was found in obedience to Jesus. Jesus said that "if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed." Who are we to add the American flag to the cross of Christ? I guess people who have found freedom in Jesus in other countries don't have real freedom.

Nothing New to Say Today

After one week into the semester, things are going nicely. I kind of like having five sections of the same course because I can do the same lessons with everyone, and I only have to do one website. When I finish thinking about Argumentative Writing, I don't have to remember to think about Literature.

My students really are getting into the discussion boards on my website. In fact, I didn't have to start the topics--they jumped right in and began discussing campus problems, the war, the fact that most of them hate Bush, etc. One of the discussions got so heated at one point that I had to jump in and remind them to watch their tone and not engage in namecalling.

Discussions in class aren't nearly that heated, but they're good. There is one guy in my 8:00 who is a die hard Bush supporter, and I have a very difficult time not expressing my extreme disdain for our President. He's outnumbered in class, so I feel I have to help in out some, but it's hard!

On another note, Husband is sick. I think he caught the flu at the doctor's office when he went to get a physical. He slept on the couch last night so I could sleep instead of hear him cough all night.

So that's about all that's going on. I'm working on a new article that I hope to post in the next week. I'm calling it "In Jesus' Name, Amen." There, now that I've told you about it, I have to finish and post it.

For now, I have to get to class.

Back to the Old Grind

Today I'm back at work after a month off. (Have I said I love being a teacher?!) Finding a parking space was not so bad--I decided not to even try parking really close to the building--but traffic was terrible, and it was raining hard. Campus has terrible drainage problems, so I knew to dress for the weather and not for fashion. My pants legs were soaked by the time I walked to my first class.

My first class went well. I had five students from last semester; seeing familiar faces really helps out on the first day. In fact, there should be lots more familiar faces in the rest of my classes. Several students asked questions about the course--I felt a little like the president fielding questions from the press corps.

I have three more classes today. Tuesdays and Thursdays are very full, and lunch comes at a weird time. The good thing about this semester, though, is that I get to teach argumentative writing, so in class we get to have great discussions about current issues. Today we talked about "Brangelina." (What's up with that?)

Well, my desk is still cluttered from last semster's junk, so I guess I should straighten up now.

Good Laugh!

If you like (or even if you don't like) blonde jokes, this one is a must see!

Illegal Immigrants and Our Comfort

This is not an opinion either way on illegal immigration, just an observation of an effect of it.

Many people say that immigrants take jobs such as construction, agriculture, etc. away from citizens by working at the same jobs for much less money. This is often true. Employers can sometimes get away with paying an immigrant (illegal or otherwise, I suppose) minimum wage or less with no benefits, when a citizen would demand twice the pay and benefits. How is it that when citizens seem to have so much trouble making ends meet, immigrants don't seem to complain about the low pay? They seem to have plenty to eat, and they come to work wearing clean clothes and looking like they've slept well. And we know that they also send money back home to their families in other countries because of the proliferation of so many Spanish-language money transfer establishments. Why, then, do we have such a problem working for so little?

Perhaps the answer lies with lifestyle. Many immigrants share housing costs by having numerous roommates. They don't seem to mind sharing close quarters with several friends or family. The sacrifice of privacy is apparently worth it to be able to save hundreds of dollars on rent each month. Lots of citizens complain about this mode of living that seems so foreign to us. Many of us wouldn't want to live next door to a three bedroom house that is occupied by ten grownups. We have grown accustomed to having our space and our privacy, and we mistrust those who don't conform to society's norms. (Oh sure, it's OK for college students to bunk up to save money; we expect it from them. But the time comes when they must grow up and conform. If they persist on bunking together after college, it must be because they are having drunken orgies and are manufacturing meth in the bathtub.)

We work hard and save our money to buy nicer cars and bigger houses. Many immigrants work hard and save their money to send home to mothers and fathers, grandparents, aunts and uncles who don't have the opportunity to work for a "decent" wage. These immigrants will sacrifice their own comfort so that their relatives back home can eat a good meal every day. When is the last time that we sacrificed our comfort for the good of someone else?

Jesus sacrificed his comfort for the good of those around him. Think about that.

Wisdom From Wally

On Leave it to Beaver last night:

Wally: You could buy it on the installment plan.
Beaver: What's that?
Wally: It's so that people who can't afford to buy something can buy it anyway.

Size Matters

I just saw a story on Inside Edition about Cosmo Girl magazine's use of a plus sized model in this month's issue. How nice, but she's a size 10. You male readers of this blog may not understand the significance of this. If your wife is a size 10, you will not be shopping in the plus size section of the store for her birthday this year.

If I keep feeling sick at my stomach, maybe I'll lose enough weight to qualify as a plus size rather than what ever I must be.


P.S. Weren't you intrigued by the title of this post? Get out of the gutter!

The Gum Tree

I don’t chew a lot of gum these days. I chew gum like the gentleman caller in Tennessee Williams’ play The Glass Menagerie: I take it out as soon as the flavor is gone. But when I was a teenager, I chewed gum all the time. In fact, I think the only time I didn’t chew gum was when I was eating or sleeping and during band practice. I remember the band director’s wife once commenting that every time she saw me I had gum in my mouth. I recall wondering what was wrong with that.

I liked chewing gum when I was a little kid too. Mama used to let me have chewing gum, usually in the car on the way to town—probably to keep me busy and from thinking too much about McDonald’s. Mama’s choice of flavor was Wrigley’s Doublemint, which I liked just fine, but my favorite was Juicy Fruit. I loved its flavor—instead of tasting minty like toothpaste, Juicy Fruit was sweet like candy and slightly exotic. It was a taste like nothing else, and I craved that unique mouthwatering sensation. Mama hardly ever bought Juicy Fruit, but I knew where I could get a fix.

Uncle Dean almost always carried a pack of chewing gum in his shirt pocket, and it was almost always the coveted Juicy Fruit. Back then, much of the extended family lived right there within a mile of each other, so it was a regular occasion to find family members at each others’ houses for whatever reason. This situation enabled my Juicy Fruit addiction because I might see Uncle Dean at any time. Whenever he was around, I wouldn’t leave him alone until I got my hands on a precious stick of that juicy, fruity treat. Sometimes, however, Uncle Dean’s pocket would be empty, and severe disappointment would set in. Every now and then, he would have taken his pack of gum out of his pocket and left it in his truck, so my temporary disappointment would be alleviated, but every now and then, no amount of begging would produce a piece of that wonderful treasure. “Gum doesn’t grow on trees,” Uncle Dean would say. (Actually, I don’t remember if he really said that—I wouldn’t have known what that meant, much less remember it—but it goes so well with the next part of the story, that I’m going to believe he did.)

One afternoon during the early spring or late fall—I don’t remember when, just that there weren’t many if any leaves on the trees—several of us were gathered in Uncle Dean’s front yard. It seems to me that there were lots of us there, but like I said earlier, there was always lots of family around, so nothing seemed out of the ordinary to me. I don’t remember the exact events as they transpired or what all was said, but what happened next was a momentous event for a young Juicy Fruit addict. Uncle Dean pointed me toward a tree on which were growing, miraculously, slender stalks in the familiar bright yellow hue. When I got closer, I saw that packs and packs of Juicy Fruit gum had been painstakingly tied to the tree, and they were ripe for the picking. My hand took hold of one the golden fruits, and my heart leaped for joy. I unwrapped a stick of my harvest and quickly savored its deliciousness. My brother Michael and my cousin Rachel helped me gather the bounty, and I was exceedingly happy even though I had to share with them. It was a wonderful day.

It must have taken hours to tie all those packs of gum to that tree. Looking back on it now with nieces of my own, I think I can see why Uncle Dean might have done that. I’ll never forget the pleasure I got that day, the day that for just a little while, in Uncle Dean’s front yard, gum really did grow on trees.

It's 2006 Already!

I can't believe another year has arrived. I just can't believe it. It's going to take me two months to get used to writing 2006 on my checks. Even typing 2006 feels weird.

Husband and I stayed up until 11:00 last night, but that's as long as we could hold out, so we didn't get to see 2006 come in. But I'm sure it looked a lot like most any other midnight.

I don't normally make any resolutions, and this year is no different. How about y'all? Are you making any resolutions?

Puzzler

Here's an interesting passage from Deuteronomy about recognizing false prophets:

You may wonder, 'How will we know whether the prophecy is from the Lord or not?' If the prophet predicts something in the Lord's name and it does not happen, the Lord did not give the message. That prophet has spoken on his own and need not be feared (NLT 18.21-2).

I would like to know what was an acceptible time frame for the prediction to come true? How long did they have to wait before knowing whether the prophet was really speaking for God?

Hmmm.

In his weekly radio address, the President just said that "in the war on terror, we can't be without [the Patriot Act] for a moment." He also said that before September 11, "terrorists at home communicated with terrorists abroad," but we didn't know that the terrorists were here [at home].

I'm not very intelligent about this type of thing, but can't the people who monitor these communications tell from the context of the conversations whether someone is inside or outside the country? Also, if a person in our country is reasonably suspected as a criminal, don't the authorities then have probable cause get a court-ordered wire tap? And can't this be done pretty quickly?

It seems to me that the President just wants to be able to spy on anyone and everyone for no particular reason without having to go through the judicial system for authorization. Sounds like that violates the Constitution.

Good Gifts Don't Come Wrapped in Pretty Paper

During the past few days I have been doing my Christmas shopping, and I am becoming increasingly more and more uncomfortable with the giving and receiving of stuff that we don't really need. We draw names on both my and my husband's side of the family, so we each have had to choose gifts for two persons (not including shopping for the kids in the family). When I think about it, though, we aren't buying things for these people that they couldn't buy for themselves. In my family, we have pretty much just asked each other what the other wants for Christmas, and for many of us, that's what we'll get. It all seems so contrived. None of this will keep me from having fun on Christmas, but, well, I don't really know what I'm trying to say here.

On another note, this week, my mom and I went to the mall to do some shopping, and we saw a big booth set up by one of the local churches where volunteers from the church are wrapping gifts for mall shoppers for free. Hmmm.

I used to attend a church where this idea was considered. The whole idea was to "show God's love in a practical way." OK. I agree that Christians definitely need to go out and show God's love, and most certainly they need to go about showing this love in practical ways. But wrapping gifts? C'mon. What's next, showing God's love by volunteering to hang lights and wreaths on the tops of people's houses?

Aren't there some other more pressing practical needs than giftwrapping presents for people who obviously can afford to buy their own wrapping paper and bows? What about the practical need of heat for someone who can no longer afford the outrageous price of propane or who is physically unable to split his own firewood. What about the practical need of food or rent money for people who have lost their jobs? Or the practical need of companionship for someone who is lonely? Sure makes the practical need for giftwrapping services seem trivial.

This is going to sound harsh, but those who think they are doing a service by wrapping presents for mall shoppers need to get real. Giftwrapping is not a worthwhile cause for the follower of Christ. The type of gifts Jesus gave required self-sacrifice and didn't come wrapped and tied with a bow. I'll be so bold as to say that those who think that wrapping gifts is a practical need are either very self-consumed or extremely ignorant. What kind of sacrifice does it take to wrap presents? Oh, yeah, those paper cuts can be brutal!

Jesus met people's practical needs by giving the gift of food to hungry masses, giving the gift of sight to people who couldn't see, giving the gift of health to people who were sick. Surely we, Christ's followers, can at least give a meal to a hungry person, or a coat to a cold person, or maybe even pay for a prescription for a sick person, or pay someone's heating bill for a month. Those types of gifts would be much more practical, and certainly they would be more appreciated. And the sacrifice involved would be much better than a paper cut.

A Good Read

I just finished reading an extremely interesting article in Rolling Stone about our government's use of public relations firms to help shape public opinion. This article deals mostly with one particular firm and how it has helped not only to shape public opinion, but also to orchestrate events that make war efforts seem more legitimate.

Here are the first few paragraphs of the article:

The road to war in Iraq led through many unlikely places. One of them was a chic hotel nestled among the strip bars and brothels that cater to foreigners in the town of Pattaya, on the Gulf of Thailand.

On December 17th, 2001, in a small room within the sound of the crashing tide, a CIA officer attached metal electrodes to the ring and index fingers of a man sitting pensively in a padded chair. The officer then stretched a black rubber tube, pleated like an accordion, around the man's chest and another across his abdomen. Finally, he slipped a thick cuff over the man's brachial artery, on the inside of his upper arm.

Strapped to the polygraph machine was Adnan Ihsan Saeed al-Haideri, a forty-three-year-old Iraqi who had fled his homeland in Kurdistan and was now determined to bring down Saddam Hussein. For hours, as thin mechanical styluses traced black lines on rolling graph paper, al-Haideri laid out an explosive tale. Answering yes and no to a series of questions, he insisted repeatedly that he was a civil engineer who had helped Saddam's men to secretly bury tons of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. The illegal arms, according to al-Haideri, were buried in subterranean wells, hidden in private villas, even stashed beneath the Saddam Hussein Hospital, the largest medical facility in Baghdad.

It was damning stuff -- just the kind of evidence the Bush administration was looking for. If the charges were true, they would offer the White House a compelling reason to invade Iraq and depose Saddam. That's why the Pentagon had flown a CIA polygraph expert to Pattaya: to question al-Haideri and confirm, once and for all, that Saddam was secretly stockpiling weapons of mass destruction.

There was only one problem: It was all a lie. After a review of the sharp peaks and deep valleys on the polygraph chart, the intelligence officer concluded that al-Haideri had made up the entire story, apparently in the hopes of securing a visa.

The fabrication might have ended there, the tale of another political refugee trying to scheme his way to a better life. But just because the story wasn't true didn't mean it couldn't be put to good use. Al-Haideri, in fact, was the product of a clandestine operation -- part espionage, part PR campaign -- that had been set up and funded by the CIA and the Pentagon for the express purpose of selling the world a war. And the man who had long been in charge of the marketing was a secretive and mysterious creature of the Washington establishment named John Rendon.

From:
Bamford, James. "The Man Who Sold the War." Rolling Stone 17 Nov. 2005.

This is a long article, but it makes for a very interesting read if you have the time.

The Disciple's Response to "Happy Holidays"

Over the past few years, I have noticed that I hear traditional Christmas songs less and less often in the stores and on the radio. I used to hear songs such as “Silent Night” and “Hark the Herald Angels Sing” as often as I’d hear “Jingle Bells” and “Deck the Halls.” Now, however, the traditional song “Joy to the World, the Lord is Come” has been replaced by “Joy to the World, all the boys and girls” (as in Jeremiah was a bullfrog). Only very infrequently is the song played that makes a reference to the birth of Jesus. TV advertisements entreat us to shop in their stores for our “holiday” gifts rather than our “Christmas” gifts. Nativity scenes are replaced by Santa and his reindeer on city hall lawns. School children don’t exchange gifts anymore. What is the “correct” way to celebrate the big holiday that comes at the end of December has become a pressing issue for many communities.

This year marks a sharp escalation in the controversy over Christmas. Now Christians are fighting to take back their sacred holiday by boycotting stores that sell “holiday trees” rather than Christmas trees and that offer greetings of “Happy Holidays” rather than “Merry Christmas.” The other day I heard of a lady who, when the checkout clerk at Lowes bade her goodbye with “Happy Holidays,” launched into a lecture on the true meaning of the season. When the manager told her that the standard greeting in their store was “Happy Holidays” rather than “Merry Christmas,” the indignant shopper promptly returned her purchase.

The local news last week interviewed the proprietress of a tree lot who remarked that at least one customer wanted to know what kind of trees she was selling—Christmas or Holiday—before committing to make a selection. It seems that all across the country, Christians and non-Christian traditionalists want to make sure that the establishments they frequent this season will celebrate the correct holiday, and they are kicking up a lot of dust and ill feelings in their fight.

All over Christian talk radio, the word is that more and more, Christians in our country are facing persecution. At no time that I can recall has this idea been more evident than this Christmas season. Christians know from Jesus’ teaching that they will be persecuted for their beliefs, but is what is being experienced now real or only perceived persecution? Is there a vast conspiracy that is out to sabotage Christmas? What is the correct response whether the persecution is real or only perceived?

Jesus himself showed his disciples that the way to overcome evil intentions and actions is to respond with love and kindness. He said that his followers are to be glad and rejoice when they are persecuted. Jesus went so far as to say that his followers should not resist people who act with evil intentions against us. If someone hits us, he says, we are to not hit back, but we should allow that person to hit us again. If we are not to strike back when someone is trying to do us bodily harm, why do we strike back when the war is only with words? It seems that the person who engages in an argument in a store about the true meaning of Christmas is doing more harm to the cause of Christ than he or she is bringing benefit. The angels’ words “Peace on Earth, good will to men” are reduced to nothing more than a meaningless slogan.

What harm, really, is being done to us by the clerk who bids us “Season’s Greetings” or the store that sells holiday trees and holiday gifts? The next time someone wishes me a “Happy Holiday,” I'm just going to smile and say, “Yes, it is a very happy one!”

"True" Religion?

People who adhere to the three major religions--Christianity, Islam, and Judaism--all believe that their religion is the "correct" one, that their religion is the most direct path to God or that it has the most correct revelation from God, or whatever.

How can everyone be "right"? When God looks down on the world and sees all these people who sincerely believe that their religion is the one that God favors, he must laugh and shake his head. How arrogant we are to think that one particular religious adherence brings us closer to God than another!

Pure and lasting religion in the sight of God our Father means that we must care for orphans and widows in their troubles, and refuse to let the world corrupt us (James 1.27).

Sissy Boys

Why would any self-respecting father let his wife dress his little boy in an outfit like this?

Good eats!

The best part of Thanksgiving is the turkey sandwich the next day. I like mine with plenty of mayo and a thick slice of tomato.

Tonight, though, I think I'll be in the mood for pizza.

Dumb Question

In an effort to cut costs, GM is closing several plants, which will leave many people without jobs in the future. Do you think that the top brass at GM will cut their salaries and benefits as part of the cost cutting effort?

Swimming (Rather Drowning) in a Sea of Poor Prose

I haven't had much time to blog in the past several days. Actually, I haven't had time to blog all semester, but I did it anyway. Now I have no time to squander; I should be grading papers instead of typing here. The problem is that I like this much better than grading essays. Perhaps next semester I should just have a class blog and make my students post all their essays to the blog and let blog comments serve as their grade. Hmmm. The more I think about it, the more I think I should experiment with that idea.

My freshmen are working on their last essay right now, a review of a movie, book, TV show, CD, etc. To prepare for the essay, we are watching movies in class so that we can write a practice review. Two of my classes are watching The Shawshank Redemption, one of my all time favorite movies, and the other two are watching Hotel Rwanda, which I have never seen before and am watching for the first time along with them. I think I may have to watch the second half of the film over the weekend in the privacy of my living room, just in case it turns out to be really sad and I have to cry. I would hate to cry in class.

I remember Lee Camp referring to the Rwandan genocide in his book Mere Discipleship, and now I'm really starting to understand what he was talking about, even though so far the references to Christianity in the movie are very veiled and are almost non-existent unless you are looking for it. Seeing the movie has made me recall stories I had heard on the news, so now the whole concept of what happened over there is starting to come together for me and is making me want to read more about it to find out all the facts.

What else is going on? Nothing really. If I can make it through the next two weeks and get a lot of school work done, I'll be home free until the middle of January when it all starts back up again. Next semester I'll be teaching five sections of research and argumentative writing which will mean that I'll be reading the word count equivalent of one poorly written 300 word novel each week. And I'll have to teach research on top of that--ugh! But the good part is teaching the argumentative part of the course, and that means great in-class discussions. College students have such a unique perspective on things--in a way, they are very opinionated (usually those opinions are those of their parents), but also they are very naive, and it's fun to challenge their beliefs and make them explain why they have those beliefs.

So anyway, if you don't see any new posts here for a few days, you'll know I'm neck-deep in essays. But I'm sure I'll come up for a breath of fresh air to read all of your blogs.

A Sick Way of Making Money

Discussions of hell will continue as I do more research. Feel free to keep commenting on previous posts. For now, I just have to talk about this:

I learned of this interesting information over at No More Mr. Nice Guy whose site I surfed into not too long ago.

When all the talk about the bird flu started, I couldn't help but notice how much the mainstream media were talking about it--it wasn't just an Internet story. When the Bush administration began to mention it every other day, I became a bit perplexed. Why in the world would they constantly talk up this bird flu as if it had already mutated and become extremely contagious from human to human? I know this isn't a very charitable thought to have, but I started getting the feeling that they really want a pandemic. I even mentioned this to my mom several days ago. And then I saw the above referenced info. It is absolutely amazing to me how often we hear of Bush cabinet members and friends owning lots of stock in companies that stand to make money from disasters.

I am NOT saying here that I think the Bush administration is going to start a pandemic. Perhaps, however, they have started a scare so as to drive up the stock prices of companies that produce flu medication so that some people will become even more wealthy.

Sin Will Put You Down in the Dumps

(Sorry this is so long, but I didn't see a good place to break it into two parts.)

Two words that Jesus used, Hades and Gehenna, are commonly translated into "Hell." Let's examine the word Gehenna.

Gehenna was the site outside of Jerusalem used for the incineration of refuse. According to Easton’s Bible Dictionary, Gehenna was the Valley of Hinnom, “(originally Ge bene Hinnom; i.e., “the valley of the sons of Hinnom”), a deep, narrow glen to the south of Jerusalem, where the idolatrous Jews offered their children in sacrifice to Molech (2 Chr. 28:3; 33:6; Jer. 7:31; 19:2–6). This valley afterwards became the common receptacle for all the refuse of the city. Here the dead bodies of animals and of criminals, and all kinds of filth, were cast and consumed by fire kept always burning.”

Now let's take a look at the contexts in which Jesus used this word. In Matthew 5 Jesus is speaking about the law of Moses, making the point that his followers should adhere to the spirit of the law and not just the letter. His aim is to bring about repentance—a renewed way of thinking about the Kingdom of God.

In the first use of "Gehenna, "he says, “You have heard that the law of Moses says, ‘Do not murder. If you commit murder, you are subject to judgment.’ ²² But I say, if you are angry with someone, you are subject to judgment! If you call someone an idiot, you are in danger of being brought before the high council. And if you curse someone, you are in danger of the fires of hell (Matt. 5.21-22).

So what was Jesus saying here? Jesus compares feelings of anger toward someone with murder and actually equates the two. Being angry and holding resentment toward someone is just as wrong as killing that person, according to Jesus. In the very next passage, Jesus says that if we do hold ill feelings toward someone, we need to go and reconcile with that person before we try to offer worship to God. Why is this so important? James tells us that our evil thoughts lead to evil actions, and our evil actions lead to death (1.15). If we come before God not having reconciled with those with whom we are angry, we have sin in our hearts and cannot worship God with purity, or “in spirit.” When we hold anger toward others, we are no better than murderers—we are criminals—according to Jesus.

Jesus’ listeners would have understood his reference to Gehenna as the place where the bodies of executed criminals were disposed of, and they knew that the law of Moses called for the execution of murderers. Jesus was telling his listeners that harboring resentment and anger toward another person is just the same as murder in God’s economy, and that just as persons would expect to be condemned for committing murder, so God’s people should not allow themselves to even harbor a murderous, or even an angry, thought against anyone else. Both offenses, according to Jesus, are sinful enough to render a person worthy of being executed and thrown into the dump for disposal in the fire.

Jesus’ next reference to hell is in the next passage when he is speaking about adultery. He says, “You have heard that the law of Moses says, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ ²⁸ But I say, anyone who even looks at a woman with lust in his eye has already committed adultery with her in his heart. ²⁹ So if your eye—even if it is your good eye—causes you to lust, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. ³⁰ And if your hand—even if it is your stronger hand—causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell” (Matt. 5.27-30 also Mark 9.42-48).

The law of Moses expressly forbade adultery and prescribed the death penalty for those guilty of the crime (Deut. 22.22). In the same way that he equated anger with murder, Jesus equates lustful thoughts with adultery. Jesus is not necessarily advocating physically gouging out one’s eyes or cutting off one’s hands, but he is using hyperbole to illustrate the extreme importance of avoiding lust. Those who get caught up in lust are likely in far more danger of progressing on to adultery than those who are angry are likely to go on to commit murder, so Jesus is expressing the need to avoid lustful thoughts at all costs. Like murderers, those who had been convicted of adultery were executed, and Jesus again uses the reference to Gehenna to illustrate that God’s people should avoid thoughts that lead to sin.

In Matthew 10, Jesus is sending his disciples out on a mission to proclaim that the Kingdom of Heaven is near, to heal the sick, raise the dead, and to cast out demons. Throughout chapter 10, Jesus has been giving them instructions on how to live by faith in God for their provisions and their protection. He warns them of persecutions to come, telling them that they will be cursed and called names, but they should not be afraid of those who threaten them with bodily harm. He says, “And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matt. 10.28 & Luke 12.5). In this case again, Gehenna—the fiery refuse dump—is the translation for hell. The implication, again, is that of the disposal of executed criminals, since what is being talked about here is the destruction of a person.

So how is a soul and body set for destruction, and who is able to destroy them? Since Jesus came to save the world and not to condemn it—and Jesus is doing the will of his father, and since Satan is the one bent on destroying humans, it’s safe to say that Satan is the one who is being talked about here. Satan is certainly able to corrupt—or destroy—one’s mind and entice a person to act out in sin, causing him or her to break the law of Moses, and consequently causing that person to be sentenced to execution and disposal in Gehenna, destroying the body.

(Another clue that Jesus is talking about Satan here is his use of the word “fear,” the Greek phobeo (# 5399) which in 90 uses is rendered in the sense of being afraid or terrified and is used only once in the sense of reverential fear.)

So in this passage, Jesus is telling his disciples to have faith in God and not to be afraid of people. He seems to be telling them not to let Satan use their fear of bodily harm to tempt them into acting out against the officials who would harm them, and by the disciples’ defiance, make them into criminals, both in the real sense of attacking and harming their attackers, and in the spiritual sense of succumbing to anger and fear. Peter fell prey to this very temptation on the night that Jesus was arrested.

In Matthew 18 (and Mark 9), the disciples ask Jesus which of them will be the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven; obviously some jealousy and arrogance is manifesting itself in the group. Jesus tells them that whoever wants to be great in the kingdom must become humble now, and he brings a small child into the group to illustrate the concept of humility and innocence. He then uses the child to begin a discussion of the problem of tempting innocent people into sin, telling them that it will be terrible for anyone who leads others into sin. Jesus here is referring again to the law of Moses, in this case the law which condemns to death any false prophet who tempts people to worship false gods (Deut. 13). Jesus is again stressing that not only the letter of the law should be followed, but the spirit of the law should be followed as well. In this case, Jesus wants his disciples to first put aside arrogance (worship of self) and put on humility, and second to realize that any turning aside from God in order to pursue sin is the same as worshiping false gods, or idolatry. Jesus repeats what he said earlier about cutting off parts of the body that cause one to sin (it’s better to be maimed than to be thrown into hell)—again using hyperbole—to reinforce the idea that the sin of arrogance is just as despicable as the sin of causing idol worship (which was punished by execution, followed by the throwing of the criminal’s body into Gehenna for disposal).

In Matthew 23, Jesus is speaking to the Pharisees, condemning their hypocrisy. He speaks about their arrogance in their religious practices and says that they are “like whitewashed tombs” (v. 27), meaning that while they put on a good front, they are actually corrupt in their hearts. (One source I read said that the outside of tombs were whitewashed so that people would know to avoid them--if that's the case, then there's another jab at the Pharisees!) He further condemns them for placing excessive burdens on those they convert, saying that they make their converts “twice the sons of hell [Gehenna]” that they themselves are. Jesus in this case is using a metaphor that would have really gotten underneath the Pharisees’ skin, equating them with Gehenna, a garbage dump so full of filth and corruption that the Pharisees would never go near it for fear of becoming ceremonially unclean. Jesus goes even further to imply that they are the worst of sinners who, if they had lived during the time of the prophets, would have participated in the murders of those innocent men of God, essentially blaspheming God, another capital offense (Lev. 24.15-16). Jesus wonders how these Pharisees will escape the “judgment of hell” (v. 33)—saying essentially that they need to be brought to justice for their crimes and executed, as the law of Moses called for, and their bodies disposed of in Gehenna.

In all of these cases, Jesus is making the point to his listeners that whenever their hearts and minds aren’t pure, they aren’t right with God and are guilty of capital crimes even if they did not physically commit one of the crimes listed in the law of Moses. According to Jesus, violating the spirit of the law of Moses is just as bad as violating the letter of the law. By continually mentioning Gehenna, Jesus is pointing out that those who violate even the spirit of the law are dishonoring God and deserve to be executed.

Hell-o!

If you haven't read my previous post, please read it before you read this one. It offers a definition and background of the term Hades, and you'll need that in order to understand this discussion.

Jesus used a couple of other references to Hades, one of which is recorded both in Matthew 11.23 and in Luke 10.15. In this reference, Jesus says that the people of Capernaum will be brought down to Hades because they did not repent of their sins and turn to God. He contrasts Capernaum with cities such as Sodom, Gomorrah, Tyre, and Sidon, which were all known for their wickedness, and he says that if he had performed his miracles in those cities, their citizens would have turned to God (In the book of Jonah, we see the evil city of Ninevah repent as a result of a few days of Jonah's preaching). As it was, Jesus had made Capernaum his base of operations and frequently taught in the synagogue and performed miracles there, so the people of Capernaum were probably very familiar with Jesus' message. As I mentioned in my previous post, one of Jesus' teachings was "from those to whom much is given, much is required" (Luke 12.48). The citizens of Capernaum were witness to some of the first manifestations of God’s kingdom, yet many had apparently rejected the lifestyle he advocated in favor of a sinful life. They had seen and heard much from Jesus, so they were to be held more accountable than those who had not heard much of Jesus’ message. It is quite possible that Jesus used the term Hades—with its levels of reward and punishment—as a metaphor for Capernaum’s situation, very similar to his illustration of the same concept that he would later teach in his parable of the rich man and the beggar. (That makes me wonder if Jesus was in Capernaum when he told that story.) He may also simply be using Hades as the synonym of Sheol, saying that the city of Capernaum will die because of its sinful condition.

In another reference to Hades, in Matthew 16.18, Jesus tells Peter, “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.” In this use of Hades, Jesus is likely speaking of the grave (Sheol). Death will not have any power against those who are a part of his church, and we see in the Revelation that death will ultimately die itself. To use the Greek concept of Hades in this context would have made little sense, as Jesus was speaking to those who had already made a choice to follow him.

Our popular concept of Hell needs to be separated from Jesus' use of the terms that are translated as Hell, Hades and Gehenna. We have been conditioned through popular use to think of a flaming torture pit when we hear the word "hell"; however, in the uses above, and in the story of the rich man and the beggar, even when he uses the Greek concept of Hades, Jesus has not necessarily said that sinners will one day be thrown into a fiery torture pit to writhe and suffer for ages upon end. His use here may simply be a metaphor for the concept that those who begin living the kingdom life now will receive a great reward in the kingdom, while those who reject that life will wish that they hadn't. (Notice that I have not said what I think will or will not happen to the "sinners." God, as we know, extends a tremendous amount of grace, but we also know from reading the Old Testament that his judgment can be swift and severe. The point of this discussion is not to speculate on the nature of the future judgment of sinners; rather, this is a focus on the meaning of certain words as Jesus used them in his day. You can draw your own conclusions as to the end judgment.)

My next discussion of hell will focus on Jesus' use of the term Gehenna. If you think I'm nuts now, just wait till you read what's to come!

Pull Up a Chair for This One

The story of Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16.19-31) is one of the most debated passages in the bible. Some people believe that the story is a literal representation of what happens to people when they die—that the morally just and innocent go to Abraham’s bosom, which is interpreted as Heaven, and that the evil people go to Hades, or Hell, and suffer in agony forever. Other people believe that the story is another of Jesus’ parables meant to illustrate the need to repent and turn to God. If you have wondered what to believe about this story, wonder no longer because I am about to give you the definitive answer. Well, not really; I’m just going to tell you what I think.

In this story, a rich man dies and goes to Hades, and a poor beggar Lazarus, who lay at the rich man’s door begging for scraps, also dies and goes to “Abraham’s bosom.” According to several Bible dictionaries, Abraham’s bosom was a euphemism for peace and happiness, and the term takes its origins from the way that people reclined at the table when eating together. The person sitting to the right of Abraham, for instance, would be able to practically lay his head against Abraham’s chest. The fact that Lazarus in the story was at Abraham’s bosom signified that he sat in a place of honor. Certainly, all good Jews of Jesus’ day claimed to be children of Abraham, and all would have relished the chance to be at Abraham’s bosom.

If Lazarus was at Abraham’s bosom, where was Abraham? Many people today would say that Abraham was (and is) in Heaven, but the ancient Hebrews had no concept of an after-life existence in Heaven with God. Genesis 25.8 tells us that when Abraham died, he was “gathered to his people.” In fact, many of Abraham’s descendents were gathered to their people when they died. To be gathered to one’s people meant to join one’s ancestors in death, in Sheol (the Hebrew word which corresponds to the Greek Hades). Both words denote the location of the dead, commonly known as the grave. To the Hebrews, people in the grave were thought of as sleeping (in the OT, kings who had died were referred to as sleeping with their fathers) and as of having no experiences or thoughts (Ps 6.5, 88.12, Ecc 9.10). Abraham, then was “sleeping” in Hades (Sheol), in his grave. It is interesting to note that if Abraham were really in Heaven, having been gathered to his people—who presumably were also in Heaven if he was gathered to them—then Heaven contains idolaters, because Abraham’s “people” were idol worshippers (Joshua 24.2).

In the Hellenized culture of Jesus’ day, the term Hades would also have taken on the connotations associated with the Greek notion of the afterlife. The ancient Greeks believed that all people, when they died and were given a proper burial, entered into Hades, the underworld, where they continued an existence in a level of Hades appropriate to their actions on Earth. Tartarus, the lowest part of Hades reserved for the most vile offenders, is referenced in 2 Peter 2.4 where Peter says that God threw the angels who sinned. Most readers (or hearers) of this epistle would have understood the reference, having grown up in a Hellenized culture. In his use of the term, Peter warns against listening to false teachers, who bring such destruction into the church that they themselves are destined to destruction in a way similar to the angels who sinned.

Jesus uses the Greek concept of life after death in an underworld (which is a concept with which his listeners would have been familiar, having been brought up in a Hellenized society) in order to illustrate the urgent need for his listeners to repent and turn to God before the day of judgment. In the Greek Hades, those who had lived good, moral lives enjoyed an afterlife in the Elysian Fields—this is presumably where Lazarus would have been—while those who had lived morally corrupt lives went to Tartarus, a place of terrible punishment, torment, and anguish. This, apparently is where the rich man was. According to Jesus’ story, the rich man wants Lazarus to come and bring him some water to quench his anguish in the flames, but Abraham tells the rich man that a great gulf, or chasm, which no one can cross, separates them from each other. In the Greek Hades, Tartarus is located in a deep, deep, chasm, so deep it was said that an anvil would take nine days to fall there from the main level of Hades. Lazarus and the rich man are very far apart in proximity in Hades, representing the idea that those who live according to the standards of God’s kingdom are very far apart spiritually from those who do not.

In the second part of the story, the rich man wants Abraham to send Lazarus back to warn the rich man’s brothers about the torment so that they won’t have to suffer as well. However, Abraham replies that they have already had ample warning about their need to repent from reading the law and the prophets. If they haven’t repented by now, not even hearing it from a man risen from the dead will convince them. Jesus’ point here is that the time for his listeners to repent is now. He is illustrating the idea that to those whom much is given, much is required, a concept which he had already taught (Luke 12.48). His listeners have been given the law and all the writings of the prophets, and now they have God’s son himself urging them to repent; therefore, if they refuse to repent, they are left without any excuse on the day of judgment. Jesus had been urging his listeners to begin living a kingdom life by doing good to others; he promised that those who do will receive a great reward in heaven. He had also taught them that those who were poor and hungry and suffering now (like Lazarus) would also be rewarded in heaven. Jesus had pronounced woe to those who lived morally impure lives by seeking the praise of men, not turning away from their sins, and not helping the poor. In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, Jesus’ use of the Greek Hades with its reward and punishment system furthers his point that those who would turn to God and live a kingdom life are spiritually far removed and much better off than those who would not.

Jesus’ parable of the rich man and the beggar Lazarus is just that, a parable. Jesus used what was familiar to his listeners to illustrate a new concept. In his day, the rich and prestigious were favored in society; they were the ones who held the reigns of power or could bend the ears of those in power, while the poor were overlooked and left to fend for themselves. Jesus was turning the system upside down, telling them during his ministry that the last would be first and the humble would be exalted. This story was a further illustration of that concept. The self-righteous exalted will be the ones clamoring to get inside the kingdom, while the humble poor will be enjoying peace and prosperity.

If teaching doesn't pan out . . .

I can now claim that I have experience operating a skid loader. Yesterday and today I moved dirt from a pile and spread it in the yard--my first attempt at landscaping. Running this machine was FUN!

Massachusetts: Land of Antiquities

Today I learned from a student's essay that Boston is an ancient and historical city.

I wonder why we haven't found any of the ruins?

Disappointment

Our pilgrimage for barbecue has been called off because Husband has to go to work. They wouldn't let him have two Saturdays off in a row. What really bugs me is that they won't tell him until Friday afternoon, and then I don't get to find out until Friday night.

Mouth Waterin'

Saturday Husband and I will be in hog heaven--well, I'll be in cow and chicken heaven since I don't eat anything piggy. We're going down to Lynchburg for the Jack Daniels Barbeque Championship, and I'm hoping to find some great brisket. I've been hearing about this contest for years, but this is the first time we'll go. I'm sure that I'll satisfy my taste for barbeque and that I'll be miserable by the time we leave.

Tennessee Lampoon's Hillbilly Vacation

Husband and I spent this past weekend in Gatlinburg. It was our first vacation in quite a while, and we had a nice time despite the fact that we had to attend a timeshare presentation in exchange for our free motel room. We had no trouble standing up to the psychological sales tactics that the people used against us because we presented a united front against their wiles. I had been tipped off that if you say you can’t afford it, they’ll keep bringing the price down until you finally give in because the price is so ridiculously low, so we told them that we never take vacations and that their product would be useless to us. And that’s no lie.

The guy who did most of the talking told us (he had a whole group of us captive in a room together, each couple with their own personal salesman) that we deserve to take nice vacations after all the hard work we do and that we owe it to our children to make sure that they have good memories of great vacations. Pu-leeze! The sales people also said to just think how we would feel if something happened to our spouse. We'd feel so bad that we didn't spend more time together. Just how much time do we think we have left, they asked us. Will that time be spent creating great memories? How morbid! I'll tell you what would really make me feel bad--if something happened to my husband after we bought a timeshare and then I'd be stuck with all those monthly payments.

The guy kept suggesting that unless we have a certain vacation lifestyle, we aren’t really enjoying ourselves. He said that the average family spends $3000 per year on vacations. Wow! Husband and I haven’t spent $3000 in ten years for vacations. The guy said that most people spend their vacations in little motel rooms, and once they have spent that money, there’s nothing to show for it. The pitch was that we should take the money that we would spend in ten years on vacations (he approximated $20,000--coincidentally, just about the price of their most popular package) and use it to buy into their timeshare plan. Then we would “own” our vacations. We would be able to vacation in all the best locations, all the while staying in fabulous accommodations. I have to admit that the accommodations were very nice. They looked like homes you’d see in a magazine. But really, even if you “own” your vacation, what more do you have to show for it than someone who doesn’t? Does the family that stays in the luxury resort come home with better memories than the family that stays in the Motel 6? (Don’t even talk about the people who like to camp out in the woods—they are just plain weird!)

I guess because Husband and I stayed in a motel, we won’t have any good memories of our first trip to Gatlinburg together. We won’t remember riding on the chair lift for the first time to get up the mountain to ride back down on the alpine slide for the first time. We won’t remember looking down from the chair lift and seeing a groundhog pop out from his hole at the edge of the slide track and then pop back in when the next rider came down. We won’t remember the scrumptious chocolate brownie dessert and great steak we had at that gorgeous restaurant we ate at on Sunday night. We won’t remember laughing at the inordinate number of pancake restaurants in Gatlinburg and Pigeon Forge. Neither will we remember shaking our heads at all the places called Hillbilly Golf, Hillbilly Souvenirs, Hillbilly Landscaping Company, and Hillbilly Laundromat. Nope, all we’ll remember is that cramped little room.

No, not the motel room. The room with all the other desperate looking people wishing that the guy would shut up.

Opinions are like. . .

Here’s a sample of what’s been going on on my freshman class discussion board. I posted the first message in this series to give them something to talk about, and they took it from there. These comments are straight from the students, grammar mistakes and all. (I have deleted names to retain anonymity.)

Message no. 109

Sunday, October 9, 2005 11:54am

Subject: Worldwide disasters

I hate to leave such a gloomy message today, but this is what I've been

thinking about. This weekend there was an earthquake in Asia, killing

thousands of people. In Guatemala, people have lost homes and lives

because of mudslides. The bird flu is spreading from the Far East and

into eastern Europe, and officials fear the virus will mutate and cause

a worldwide flu pandemic. Here in the U.S. we have suffered through

several hurricanes and now flooding rains in the Northeast. A magma dome

is building under the Two Sisters in Oregon, and Mt. St. Helens in

Washington is still threatening to blow. Other hurricanes and typhoons

have hit countries in the Pacific Ocean region.

Lots of stuff has been happening over the last couple of months. Have

you been concerned about these events?

Here’s a response from a female student:

Message no. 111[Branch from no. 109]

on Sunday, October 9, 2005 5:43pm

Subject: Re: Worldwide disasters

The part that concerns me the most is that all this stuff is happening around the world

and the US is so quick to send help and send money and send aid but yet when it

happens in our own backyard, it takes us so long to get organized and get what is

needed for the people in Lousiana and Mississippi.

A response from another female student:

Message no. 115[Branch from no. 109]

Monday, October 10, 2005 11:03am

Subject: Re: Worldwide disasters

Being concerned about these events is probably on everyone's mind. I am a firm

believer that everything happens for a reason. In this world there are certain things

that "MAN" just can't control. They will never be able stop the volcanoes from errupting

or hurricanes from forming. That's something that most people just don't understand. If

these disaterous events happen who is to blame? Everyone wants to blame the

president who has no control over anything in the atomosphere. All he can do if aid

those in need. No one knows the amount of stress he goes through everyday. I get so

mad when the people of this country diss their own leader. If you don't want to follow

him and his authority to rule then leave the country and try to tell somebody else what

you like and don't like. Those people who don't like the president are literally idots in my

opinion.

At this point, I thought I should interject a comment to remind students that the readership of this list is diverse in its political opinions (and, I admit, to express my own consternation at the “idot” comment), so here’s what I said:

Message no. 117[Branch from no. 115]

Monday, October 10, 2005 12:34pm

Subject: Re: Worldwide disasters

Call me an idiot then.

This response is from the same student that wrote message #111:

Message no. 121[Branch from no. 115]

Monday, October 10, 2005 6:08pm

Subject: Re: Worldwide disasters

alright i guess i'm an idiot then. but i have reasons to back up my opinion, its not just

because i liked kerry and i dont like bush. i would say this about any president that was

in office. they make the concious decision to send millions of dollars of aid to forgein

countries but when it comes to helping his own people, the same people that put him in

office, he can't do it, he drags his feet. look how long it took him to go tour Lousiana and

Mississippi, look how long it took him to listen to the people, to see the disaster with his

own eyes. just like in the countries that we're rushing to help now, the people that

couldn't leave the south are the ones that need the most help. the ones on welfare, the

ones without the means to leave, no cars, no money to put gas in their cars. you can't

help a person by giving them food stamps and giving them homes but then when their is

a disaster, we expect them to help themselves. it's not going to happen that way.

Another female response:

Message no. 131[Branch from no. 115]

Wednesday, October 12, 2005 11:42pm

Subject: Re: Worldwide disasters

Apparently, there are many of us IDIOTS....i would be careful as to what i say to whom on these message boards. im an "idiot" as well, am proud of it, but i dont take lightly to being called as such. but, everyone has their opinion. just so its known though, many people DO NOT share that opinion. i would never vote for Bush. it's not that i dont like him, its that i dont like the way things have been handles, and think they could have been handled better if another person was in office. there, i said it.

And finally a guy jumps in:

Message no. 132[Branch from no. 115]

Thursday, October 13, 2005 1:13am

Subject: Re: Worldwide disasters

Add me to the idiot list while your at it.

This next message is from the same student as above. Notice that this comment was posted thirty minutes after the previous one. Apparently he stewed about it for a few minutes.

Message no. 133[Branch from no. 115]

Thursday, October 13, 2005 1:46am

Subject: Re: Worldwide disasters

While I'm at it..what's with the whole "If you don't want to follow him and his authority to rule" thing about? The term "Ruler" is reserved for titles such as king or emperor and

such. The president is supposed to represent the people who put him in office, not rule

them. Bush is mainly worried about helping out his friends...weather it's getting them

appointed to an office or lining their pockets any way he can. Take the example of Bush

hiring one of his buds to head the FEMA department. The guy had no idea what he was

doing after Katrina hit and had to resign. I was kinda glad to see his approval rating last

week fall to 37%....at least that means some diehard Bush supporters are comming to

their senses. I can't see how anyone would stand up for him after the crazy decisions

he's pulled out of his butt. I've always heard that the more you stir shit the worse it

smells. I wish more than anything that Bush could learn how to quit stiring and admit he

was wrong about many descisions he's made while he's been in office.

This little conversation got my morning started with a good laugh.

Hands Off!

OK, this is sorta gross, but I was in the restroom washing my hands (singing "Happy Birthday" twice during the process, just like you're supposed to), and I noticed at least three girls exit the stalls and not wash their hands before leaving the restroom. Didn't their mothers teach them that hand washing is essential?

This really bothers me, especially at this time of year when people are starting to get sick. I am leery of every doorknob, every handle. I feel the need to carry a bottle of alcohol to sterilize my hands after touching anything outside of my office. Am I paranoid?

I have noticed that some women in the restroom are much more cautious than I usually am. They will finish washing their hands and then not turn off the water until after drying their hands, turning off the faucet with a paper towel and then carrying the paper towel to the door, using it to touch the door handle as well. I used to think that this was a bit of overkill, but I find that I am now doing the same thing.

With all the talk of a possible flu epidemic, I would think that people would be more cautious. I know I certainly am more picky about what I touch and whose hand I shake.

Revenge is Sweet

Yesterday in my literature class, we discussed a story in which a father exacts revenge on the young man who murdered his son. Here are the particulars: The son, Frank, is dating the estranged wife of the killer, Richard. One day Richard beats Frank up, and sometime later Richard barges into his estranged wife's house (they are in the process of divorce) and shoots Frank in the face in front of the wife and their two young sons. Richard gets out on bail, and late one night Matt (Frank's father) and one of his friends kidnap Richard outside of the bar where he works, take him to a remote area, and kill him. This killing is very well planned, down to the last detail, so that they will not be caught. During the process, Matt seems to waver in whether he thinks he is capable of killing Richard, but in the end, when Richard tries to escape, Matt shoots him without hesitation and then shoots him again in the back of the head to finish the job. (The movie In the Bedroom is an adaptation of this story.)

My students were very sympathetic toward Matt. Many of them felt that if they were put into a situation in which someone murdered one of their loved ones, they wouldn't have any problem hunting down the killer and ridding the world of him. I asked them if they would have any problem being friends with Matt, and they said that no, Matt was a very good man (and the story does depict him as a very good husband, father, and friend), and they would like to have him as a friend, but they would not be friends with Richard.

My students also expressed a lack of confidence in the justice system. Many of them felt that convicted murderers have too many rights and too many appeals and that executions need to happen more swiftly. Others felt that capital punishment is too easy, that murderers need to live but suffer harshly for what they have done (the word "torture" was even mentioned). My students also have problems with murderers getting out of prison. A couple of them had actually lost loved ones to violent crime and said that whenever the killer comes up for release, the family has to relive the painful incident over again. Another interesting thing many of my students said was that they do not trust when criminals in prison claim to have "found God" or "gotten religion."

If any students in class felt less harshly toward murderers, they didn't speak up. The biblical concept of forgiveness was brought up, but it was generally acknowledged that extending forgiveness to a person who has committed a crime of that magnitude is extremely difficult if not impossible.

So what do you think? Do you agree with my students? Or are you "soft on crime"?

Do I Know This Person?

I wonder if this is one of my students.
(Image from PostSecret.)