...trying to do something different than "Christianese..."
Let's start talking about getting rid of some of the common phrases in the Christian world. Here's a few that bug me.
1. Heavenly Father
OK, maybe it's not that bad of a phrase, but let me do what I do and pick it apart. Heavenly - not of this world, not earthly... not present, not near, separated, etc. Father - male, dad, patriarch, ruler, etc. Father is a good word, but not for everyone. So do we want to associate all those things with God? Do we really think about all those things when we say "Heavenly Father?" Or are we just saying it because other people have said it? Could using the phrase make people think God is distant and not present? Could some associate the negative feelings they have of their own fathers with God? Maybe...
Sure, I'm being a little over the top here, but come on! There are better phrases to use. How about "Loving God," or "Gracious God," or anything else that isn't androcentric and outdated.
2. Man
As in "God's ways are better than man's," and "Mankind," and "With man, this is impossible, but not with God." Can we finally get away from this androcentric, patriarchal stuff? Could it be that women would like to be included in the whole mix? I mean, haven't we tried to keep them oppressed for long enough? I know what you're saying - "When I say 'Mankind', I'm referring to men and women." OK, so why not say, "Humankind?" Maybe women don't want to be lumped in to a category that bears the name of the all-powerful (tongue ripping through my cheek), all-fallible "man."
Same thing goes for "Brothers." Paul used that word like crazy, and I'm sure he meant "brothers and sisters..." but that's the culture in which he lived. His culture revolved around the man, so saying "brothers" to refer to men and women was what he did. We don't live then. We live now. Let's try to be a little more gender inclusive. I know we can do it!
3. Just
Whenever someone says the phrase, "Let's say a word of prayer," I always think that the most common "word of prayer" is probably the word "just." Think about it. "Dear God, we just come to you today ask you to just..." and the "justs" keep coming. What's up with that? Are we trying to seem humble in our prayers? Are we trying to minimize our requests? "God, I'm just asking for this..." Or has it become a filler word, like "um" 2.0?
Maybe we could really become a little more "just" as Christians. That would be a good thing. Instead of saying "just" all the time, we could practice a little justice in this world.
4. Relationship
As in, "I don't believe in religion. I believe in a relationship with Jesus." Great concept, and I'm sure it was really profound when it was first uttered. But I think the time has come to retire that phrase. We do believe in religion. It's what we do. It's the particular way we have decided to have relationship with God. It's the structure that we choose to use to respond to God's revelation. Yeah, religion can and often is a really bad thing, but not always. It's necessary.
5. Personal Relationship
Taking it one step further - the notion of a "personal relationship" with Jesus Christ. What does that mean? Is that even biblical? God works in communities. Jesus saves the world. The Bible is a book written to and meant to be read in community. This personal stuff seems to be more of a product of American Christianity than anything else. Yes, there are personal aspects to our relationship with Jesus, but there are also corporate/communal aspects, global aspects, etc.
6. What does the Bible have to say about _____?
If you read my previous posts, you probably know where I'm going here. Why have we turned the Bible into the answer key/owner's manual for everything with which we come in conctact? "Abortion? What does the Bible have to say about that?" "Republican or Democrat? What does the Bible have to say about that?" "Speeding on the freeway? What does the Bible have to say about that?" Are we really OK with stripping the Bible of all it's beauty to turn it into some kind of how-to on life? Should we just consider it normal to treat the Bible like we do the US Constitution? Pastors have become Judges who interpret biblical law instead of shepherds who help people experience the kingdom of God here and now. There's a lot more here, but I won't get into it.
That's a good start. Have any others you'd like to share?
Showing posts with label venting. Show all posts
Showing posts with label venting. Show all posts
8.04.2009
7.30.2009
my own inspiration
I'm often inspired. I know... a little bit of a weird sentence to write after my last post. Let me explain.
I get inspired by a lot of things every day - great stuff I read or see online. Pithy quotes in movies. Profound lyrics colored by beautiful melodies. You know the stuff.
But I'm lazy. Really lazy. I want so badly to put this inspiration to words or music, but I end up giving a lot of my time to less meaningful things (hello facebook. I'm talking to you). Why is that? When does it change? I mean, I'm approaching 30 at a full run, and I'm scared that when I hit it, it's going to hit back twice as hard.
What am I saying? Who knows. Maybe this is a prayer. God, help me give life to something significant instead of letting inspiration stir me and then fade. Yeah, maybe it's a prayer... or maybe it's just a rant.
Let me end by saying nothing at all.
I get inspired by a lot of things every day - great stuff I read or see online. Pithy quotes in movies. Profound lyrics colored by beautiful melodies. You know the stuff.
But I'm lazy. Really lazy. I want so badly to put this inspiration to words or music, but I end up giving a lot of my time to less meaningful things (hello facebook. I'm talking to you). Why is that? When does it change? I mean, I'm approaching 30 at a full run, and I'm scared that when I hit it, it's going to hit back twice as hard.
What am I saying? Who knows. Maybe this is a prayer. God, help me give life to something significant instead of letting inspiration stir me and then fade. Yeah, maybe it's a prayer... or maybe it's just a rant.
Let me end by saying nothing at all.
5.12.2009
what the Greek really means
It's one of the most dreaded phrases we as teachers/pastors/ministers can utter. "What the Greek word _____ really means is..." I'm sure those of us who are regular church goers have heard some variation on this phrase many times. Here are a few reasons why it's a bad idea to utter those words:
(side note: I will mostly write about the NT and Greek for a couple reasons. One is that I have mostly studied Greek, so I'm closer to that topic. The second is that I don't find the problems I will explain below to happen as much with Hebrew and the OT. I'm not sure why this is the case.)
1. Most likely, we're wrong:
And if we're not completely wrong, we're at the very least slightly off. Koine Greek (or NT Greek) was not a magical, beautiful, robust language. It was the language of the people. Koine means "common." It was common Greek. When we say how rich and deep each and every word actually is, we're misunderstanding the fact that this language is not necessarily a deep and rich language.
Think about this: We all know about the word "agape." We've heard that it means "unconditional love," or something like that. But when you start to read the NT, you realize that the NT writers used agape all the time. It was the normal word for love. It didn't have any deep and magical meaning. It just meant "love." Now the NT writers used agape in a lot of different ways; sometimes to indicate the love God has for people, and other times to indicate the kind of love the Pharisees had for themselves.
If you think about it, agape functions just like the English word "love." People love their spouses, their jobs, their cars, their American Idols, their parents, and so on. It doesn't mean much without the context.
2. When we say "What the Greek really means..." most often what we really are saying is, "What the dictionary says..."
A great example of this that I've heard is that the Greek word for "believe" in the NT really means, "to trust in, rely on, and cling to." As if the author knew when he or she wrote "pisteuo" that the word was pregnant with such deep and rich meaning. But if we just bust open an English dictionary, we can learn that the definition for believe can be any of those things. So we're really not expressing what the Greek means as much as we are expressing what the English definition of a given word actually is. No Greek needed there.
I think the problem comes when we don't have enough knowledge of Greek to do a proper word study. We simply open a basic lexicon and list of the various definitions of a Greek word. That's not exactly how it works. In other words, we can't just open up a Greek lexicon, look up "pneuma," read off the definitions of "spirit, wind, breath, etc." and claim we've done a word study. Furthermore, we can't then take those definitions and say the Greek word pneuma really means "spirit, wind, breath, etc." The author may not (and most likely did not) have all of the definitions in mind when he or she used the word.
Think about how frustrating it would be to have someone pick apart one of your emails like this. To a friend, you might write something like, "I'm scared I might lose my job this week." Should your friend bust open the dictionary and read all of the definitions for "scared" in order to properly understand your feelings? Wouldn't that most likely lead him or her down the wrong road when considering the intended meaning behind what you wrote? Think about it...
3. We remove the text from the people:
When we utter the words, "What the Greek really means" in a sermon or teaching, one of the things we are communicating is, "The English doesn't cut it. You have to be able to read the Greek to really understand what's going on here." Think about the kind of frustration that would cause someone. It could have devastating effects to regularly hear that you can't truly understand what's going in the Bible on unless you read Greek. Suddenly the text doesn't seem as accessible as it did before. In order to really "get it," you have to know what the Greek really means.
4. It makes the English versions seem unreliable:
If we keep harping on the idea that the English translation of the Bible is incomplete, we start to develop in people a mistrust of the various versions of the Bible. If we're always saying certain words really mean something other than what a person's English translation uses, we may be cultivating something in the people who hear us that is not healthy.
English translations, by and large, do a good job at translating what is a pretty complicated language and subject matter. I say Greek is complicated more because it is a dead language that no one speaks anymore. This makes it a bit challenging because we can't consult a native speaker to help us with what we've translated. So in the end, most translations do a good job communicating the ideas behind the text. Sure, they could have chosen different definitions for some words, but the spirit of what was written survives.
5. We put ourselves in an undeserved position of authority:
We are the ones who can really know what the Bible means. We know Greek, and since you can only understand what the Bible is really saying by reading the Greek, you must come to us in order to get to the bottom of scripture.
Sure, I might be overstating it a little, but I'm not that far off. If I'm a pastor who is regularly saying, "What the Greek really means...", I'm presenting myself as a type of authority in this area. In other words, I'm saying, "I know Greek. That's why I can know what the Bible really means." And to take it a little further, "You don't know Greek. Come to me, and I'll tell you what the Bible really means."
Add to this the fact that most people can't really check what we're saying to see if it's true. If I say the Greek word means something, who's going to challenge me on that? Most will take it as gospel. That's a bad thing. I'm placing myself and my words in a position of authority that is above criticism. Bad news for any person in a power position over others.
The boring stuff of Greek:
Here's an interesting thought: The title of my little blog is "grapso skubalon." The first word means, essentially "to write." The second word is a crass way of saying "dung." Nothing too enlightening there. But I purposely put the first word in the future tense. My original thought was to title the blog, "I will write crap."
Here's where it gets interesting - The tense of the word "grapso" can be future (as I originally intended it), or the tense can be subjunctive (exactly the same form), which would change the translation to "I might write crap." Small difference, but kind of a big one. And the kicker is that the only way to tell what form I was using is by context. Since there is no context, it could go either way.
And that's the boring stuff of Greek. Did I intend the sentence to be future or subjunctive? Do I think I will always write crap, or do I think I might write crap at some point, but I might not? Big difference...
Note this: it's a long way from saying, "What the Greek really means..." Not to mention, it's a lot more boring too. People get excited about the perceived "magic" of the Greek language. In reality, Greek word studies can be boring and uninformative.
So when you feel yourself about to say those dreaded words, "What the Greek really means...," bite your tongue and express your thought without appealing to the Greek.
*These guys say it much more gracious than I am saying it.
(side note: I will mostly write about the NT and Greek for a couple reasons. One is that I have mostly studied Greek, so I'm closer to that topic. The second is that I don't find the problems I will explain below to happen as much with Hebrew and the OT. I'm not sure why this is the case.)
1. Most likely, we're wrong:
And if we're not completely wrong, we're at the very least slightly off. Koine Greek (or NT Greek) was not a magical, beautiful, robust language. It was the language of the people. Koine means "common." It was common Greek. When we say how rich and deep each and every word actually is, we're misunderstanding the fact that this language is not necessarily a deep and rich language.
Think about this: We all know about the word "agape." We've heard that it means "unconditional love," or something like that. But when you start to read the NT, you realize that the NT writers used agape all the time. It was the normal word for love. It didn't have any deep and magical meaning. It just meant "love." Now the NT writers used agape in a lot of different ways; sometimes to indicate the love God has for people, and other times to indicate the kind of love the Pharisees had for themselves.If you think about it, agape functions just like the English word "love." People love their spouses, their jobs, their cars, their American Idols, their parents, and so on. It doesn't mean much without the context.
2. When we say "What the Greek really means..." most often what we really are saying is, "What the dictionary says..."
A great example of this that I've heard is that the Greek word for "believe" in the NT really means, "to trust in, rely on, and cling to." As if the author knew when he or she wrote "pisteuo" that the word was pregnant with such deep and rich meaning. But if we just bust open an English dictionary, we can learn that the definition for believe can be any of those things. So we're really not expressing what the Greek means as much as we are expressing what the English definition of a given word actually is. No Greek needed there.
I think the problem comes when we don't have enough knowledge of Greek to do a proper word study. We simply open a basic lexicon and list of the various definitions of a Greek word. That's not exactly how it works. In other words, we can't just open up a Greek lexicon, look up "pneuma," read off the definitions of "spirit, wind, breath, etc." and claim we've done a word study. Furthermore, we can't then take those definitions and say the Greek word pneuma really means "spirit, wind, breath, etc." The author may not (and most likely did not) have all of the definitions in mind when he or she used the word.
Think about how frustrating it would be to have someone pick apart one of your emails like this. To a friend, you might write something like, "I'm scared I might lose my job this week." Should your friend bust open the dictionary and read all of the definitions for "scared" in order to properly understand your feelings? Wouldn't that most likely lead him or her down the wrong road when considering the intended meaning behind what you wrote? Think about it...
3. We remove the text from the people:
When we utter the words, "What the Greek really means" in a sermon or teaching, one of the things we are communicating is, "The English doesn't cut it. You have to be able to read the Greek to really understand what's going on here." Think about the kind of frustration that would cause someone. It could have devastating effects to regularly hear that you can't truly understand what's going in the Bible on unless you read Greek. Suddenly the text doesn't seem as accessible as it did before. In order to really "get it," you have to know what the Greek really means.
4. It makes the English versions seem unreliable:
If we keep harping on the idea that the English translation of the Bible is incomplete, we start to develop in people a mistrust of the various versions of the Bible. If we're always saying certain words really mean something other than what a person's English translation uses, we may be cultivating something in the people who hear us that is not healthy.
English translations, by and large, do a good job at translating what is a pretty complicated language and subject matter. I say Greek is complicated more because it is a dead language that no one speaks anymore. This makes it a bit challenging because we can't consult a native speaker to help us with what we've translated. So in the end, most translations do a good job communicating the ideas behind the text. Sure, they could have chosen different definitions for some words, but the spirit of what was written survives.
5. We put ourselves in an undeserved position of authority:
We are the ones who can really know what the Bible means. We know Greek, and since you can only understand what the Bible is really saying by reading the Greek, you must come to us in order to get to the bottom of scripture.
Sure, I might be overstating it a little, but I'm not that far off. If I'm a pastor who is regularly saying, "What the Greek really means...", I'm presenting myself as a type of authority in this area. In other words, I'm saying, "I know Greek. That's why I can know what the Bible really means." And to take it a little further, "You don't know Greek. Come to me, and I'll tell you what the Bible really means."
Add to this the fact that most people can't really check what we're saying to see if it's true. If I say the Greek word means something, who's going to challenge me on that? Most will take it as gospel. That's a bad thing. I'm placing myself and my words in a position of authority that is above criticism. Bad news for any person in a power position over others.
The boring stuff of Greek:
Here's an interesting thought: The title of my little blog is "grapso skubalon." The first word means, essentially "to write." The second word is a crass way of saying "dung." Nothing too enlightening there. But I purposely put the first word in the future tense. My original thought was to title the blog, "I will write crap."
Here's where it gets interesting - The tense of the word "grapso" can be future (as I originally intended it), or the tense can be subjunctive (exactly the same form), which would change the translation to "I might write crap." Small difference, but kind of a big one. And the kicker is that the only way to tell what form I was using is by context. Since there is no context, it could go either way.
And that's the boring stuff of Greek. Did I intend the sentence to be future or subjunctive? Do I think I will always write crap, or do I think I might write crap at some point, but I might not? Big difference...
Note this: it's a long way from saying, "What the Greek really means..." Not to mention, it's a lot more boring too. People get excited about the perceived "magic" of the Greek language. In reality, Greek word studies can be boring and uninformative.
So when you feel yourself about to say those dreaded words, "What the Greek really means...," bite your tongue and express your thought without appealing to the Greek.
*These guys say it much more gracious than I am saying it.
5.03.2009
swindle flu
Anyone living in the US who is even remotely listening to what's going on around him or her knows about the deadly swine flu pandemic. It started in Mexico, and there are some cases in the US and other places... etc. etc. With as much media attention that the swine flu is getting, one would think thousands of people have died from it. In reality, there are 19 confirmed deaths in Mexico (as of 5/3/09) and 1 confirmed death in the US. To put that in perspective, the regular flu claims somewhere around 30,000 people per year.
I don't really want to focus on the media hype or any conspiracy connected to that. I do want to bring up a point that a commenter made on a blog I read. Fear of the swine flu will have devastating effects on the economy of Mexico. Think about it: so many people are canceling trips to Mexico, which will cost huge amounts of money to the Mexican community. My wife was supposed to be in Cancun the last 3 days on a major conference, but the whole thing was canceled. There goes thousands of dollars, I'm sure.
And another thing: why do we not care about how many people die of malaria and starvation and obesity and AIDS and so many other things? Why are we investing so much energy into something so (relatively) minor? Is it really worth all the damage that will be done to countless people?
Swine flu will probably end up hurting a lot of people, and most of them will never actually contract the virus.
I don't really want to focus on the media hype or any conspiracy connected to that. I do want to bring up a point that a commenter made on a blog I read. Fear of the swine flu will have devastating effects on the economy of Mexico. Think about it: so many people are canceling trips to Mexico, which will cost huge amounts of money to the Mexican community. My wife was supposed to be in Cancun the last 3 days on a major conference, but the whole thing was canceled. There goes thousands of dollars, I'm sure.
And another thing: why do we not care about how many people die of malaria and starvation and obesity and AIDS and so many other things? Why are we investing so much energy into something so (relatively) minor? Is it really worth all the damage that will be done to countless people?
Swine flu will probably end up hurting a lot of people, and most of them will never actually contract the virus.
4.14.2009
worthless degree
It's time for another venting session. I've hinted at this topic before in a couple posts, but it's been on my mind once again.
Honestly, I'm not sure how really to express this, but the idea that keeps going on in my mind is that I have just spent a lot of time and money to get a worthless degree. All told, I have spent 7 years of my life studying Bible and theology only to come out on the other end and realize that no one really cares.
I have this romantic notion that people will come to me and say, "Hey, I can't figure out this thing I read in the Bible. What do you think?" I guess I thought that at some point, people would want to know some of the stuff I've spent years learning.
But the reality seems to be that no one cares. In fact, most people, when they learn you have a seminary education, just want to argue with you or prove you wrong.
My wife seems to have the opposite problem. She has multiple degrees in the field of Psychology, and people usually approach her hoping she will diagnose them or a friend. Most people see her as somewhat of an expert, and they want to know what she thinks.
I find the opposite to be true. Some people look at me and my seminarian friends, think that we consider ourselves to be experts, and proceed to tell us what they think. It's like, "Oh, you have a degree in Theology, do you? Well, here's why you're wrong..." Maybe that's overstating it. It's not always that obvious. But I do feel a general sense of hostility from the Church world toward people who have seminary degrees. In fact, a pastor recently told me that he would prefer to not hire a seminarian at his church. What?!?! Isn't that why we go to seminary? To be better at church work?
I'm going to keep going here... sorry if this is getting long.
I think the problem is this: Pastors think seminarians are bitter and jaded because of the intense scholarship they encounter. But the reality might be that seminarians become bitter and jaded because all they want to do is share what they've learned with others, but those "others" don't want to hear it. In one sense, it seems that pastors are a little threatened by seminarians. And why wouldn't that make a seminarian bitter and jaded? The very institution they want to serve with their newfound knowledge rejects them.
Those who know me can probably see right through this rant. They see what motivates me to write what I write... so be it. I can't help that. I started this process many years ago to be a better pastor and help other pastors become better pastors. Here I sit on the other side of some painful rejection that makes me doubt I made the right decision.
I have no positive ending to this post. Call it a lament, I guess.
update: I need to add a few more thoughts. First, I love Fuller Seminary. I would not trade my degree for anything. I'm proud of myself for completing it, and I think it is incredibly important for anyone wanting to work in the church world to have such a degree. This leads into the second thing: There is a paradox about all of this. I truly believe people working with the Bible and theology need to be trained. At the same time, it seems that people really don't care if you're trained. To me, that is just an impossible paradox that I can't reconcile and still don't know how to approach.
Honestly, I'm not sure how really to express this, but the idea that keeps going on in my mind is that I have just spent a lot of time and money to get a worthless degree. All told, I have spent 7 years of my life studying Bible and theology only to come out on the other end and realize that no one really cares.
I have this romantic notion that people will come to me and say, "Hey, I can't figure out this thing I read in the Bible. What do you think?" I guess I thought that at some point, people would want to know some of the stuff I've spent years learning.
But the reality seems to be that no one cares. In fact, most people, when they learn you have a seminary education, just want to argue with you or prove you wrong.
My wife seems to have the opposite problem. She has multiple degrees in the field of Psychology, and people usually approach her hoping she will diagnose them or a friend. Most people see her as somewhat of an expert, and they want to know what she thinks.
I find the opposite to be true. Some people look at me and my seminarian friends, think that we consider ourselves to be experts, and proceed to tell us what they think. It's like, "Oh, you have a degree in Theology, do you? Well, here's why you're wrong..." Maybe that's overstating it. It's not always that obvious. But I do feel a general sense of hostility from the Church world toward people who have seminary degrees. In fact, a pastor recently told me that he would prefer to not hire a seminarian at his church. What?!?! Isn't that why we go to seminary? To be better at church work?
I'm going to keep going here... sorry if this is getting long.
I think the problem is this: Pastors think seminarians are bitter and jaded because of the intense scholarship they encounter. But the reality might be that seminarians become bitter and jaded because all they want to do is share what they've learned with others, but those "others" don't want to hear it. In one sense, it seems that pastors are a little threatened by seminarians. And why wouldn't that make a seminarian bitter and jaded? The very institution they want to serve with their newfound knowledge rejects them.
Those who know me can probably see right through this rant. They see what motivates me to write what I write... so be it. I can't help that. I started this process many years ago to be a better pastor and help other pastors become better pastors. Here I sit on the other side of some painful rejection that makes me doubt I made the right decision.
I have no positive ending to this post. Call it a lament, I guess.
update: I need to add a few more thoughts. First, I love Fuller Seminary. I would not trade my degree for anything. I'm proud of myself for completing it, and I think it is incredibly important for anyone wanting to work in the church world to have such a degree. This leads into the second thing: There is a paradox about all of this. I truly believe people working with the Bible and theology need to be trained. At the same time, it seems that people really don't care if you're trained. To me, that is just an impossible paradox that I can't reconcile and still don't know how to approach.
4.05.2009
keep calm and carry on
This is the worst economic climate we have ever experienced. Life will never be the same again. We are doomed.
Or are we? What's with all the fear mongering these days? The economy is not in great shape, sure. But are all these crazy reactions helping? One of the higher-ups at my school recently declared that we are officially in a depression. He deduced this by reading Herbert Hoover's book about the great depression. Really? A depression? Seems a little premature and irresponsible to declare to a group of employees that the country is in such a state... but that's another blog topic.
A co-worker sent me a link to a great article that addresses this kind of narcissism that declares we as a country are in a uniquely terrible situation. I wish so much that the leaders of this country would show just a little optimism through this time. It would do so much good.
I'm not a huge fan of George Bush, but at least he had somewhat more of a positive approach to tough economic times, maybe even to a fault. I remember him coming under so much criticism for telling people to go shop when we were at war. Kind of a weird thing to say, I know, but I think he was trying to tell people to just go about their normal business, and by doing so, they would ensure the economy stays strong.
Here's a quote from the article above that stuck out to me:
During World War II, the UK was facing not only a suffering economy but also a daily pounding of heavy explosives from the enemy. In an attempt to quell the public anxiety, the British government posted signs around the city with the sage advice, “Keep Calm and Carry On.” Perhaps another reason to carry on is that, like all previous calamities, this too shall pass. And, if we keep calm, we may actually look back and gain confidence from the proof that history provides us. Leaders today may want to hunker down and send a similar message.
Oh that I wish the message of "Keep calm and carry on" would be the type of message we were hearing from the government. Instead, there is very little assurance and confidence and mostly a lot of fear mongering.
Can we get a grip for a moment? We're not in a unique situation here. This has happened before and will happen again, and we will survive.
Or are we? What's with all the fear mongering these days? The economy is not in great shape, sure. But are all these crazy reactions helping? One of the higher-ups at my school recently declared that we are officially in a depression. He deduced this by reading Herbert Hoover's book about the great depression. Really? A depression? Seems a little premature and irresponsible to declare to a group of employees that the country is in such a state... but that's another blog topic.
A co-worker sent me a link to a great article that addresses this kind of narcissism that declares we as a country are in a uniquely terrible situation. I wish so much that the leaders of this country would show just a little optimism through this time. It would do so much good.
I'm not a huge fan of George Bush, but at least he had somewhat more of a positive approach to tough economic times, maybe even to a fault. I remember him coming under so much criticism for telling people to go shop when we were at war. Kind of a weird thing to say, I know, but I think he was trying to tell people to just go about their normal business, and by doing so, they would ensure the economy stays strong.
Here's a quote from the article above that stuck out to me:
During World War II, the UK was facing not only a suffering economy but also a daily pounding of heavy explosives from the enemy. In an attempt to quell the public anxiety, the British government posted signs around the city with the sage advice, “Keep Calm and Carry On.” Perhaps another reason to carry on is that, like all previous calamities, this too shall pass. And, if we keep calm, we may actually look back and gain confidence from the proof that history provides us. Leaders today may want to hunker down and send a similar message.
Oh that I wish the message of "Keep calm and carry on" would be the type of message we were hearing from the government. Instead, there is very little assurance and confidence and mostly a lot of fear mongering.
Can we get a grip for a moment? We're not in a unique situation here. This has happened before and will happen again, and we will survive.
3.17.2009
last paper
I sit here in the library about to start my last paper for Fuller Seminary. I guess I should say that it is my last masters level paper for Fuller. I'm not ready to rule out a PhD, and Fuller could be an option.
But nevertheless, here I sit, not sure where to start. I guess in all honesty, I know where to start, I just don't want to. I have my passage selected. I have a decently narrow thesis. I have three days to knock it out. I've been under the gun much more than I am right now.
Yet I'm still hesitating, and I'm not sure why. Maybe I don't want to be done. Maybe I do, but I don't want my last paper to be crap. Maybe I quit mentally long before I should have. On Sunday, I wrote a reflection style paper, and it felt like trying to run in the pool. I was pushing hard, but not really going anywhere too effectively. I guess I'm scared that's about to happen with this final paper. And such an approach will not end well for this class. I have to be on. This has to be some of my best work.
I guess I better set aside the distractions (like this blog!) and get to it. See you on the other side!
But nevertheless, here I sit, not sure where to start. I guess in all honesty, I know where to start, I just don't want to. I have my passage selected. I have a decently narrow thesis. I have three days to knock it out. I've been under the gun much more than I am right now.
Yet I'm still hesitating, and I'm not sure why. Maybe I don't want to be done. Maybe I do, but I don't want my last paper to be crap. Maybe I quit mentally long before I should have. On Sunday, I wrote a reflection style paper, and it felt like trying to run in the pool. I was pushing hard, but not really going anywhere too effectively. I guess I'm scared that's about to happen with this final paper. And such an approach will not end well for this class. I have to be on. This has to be some of my best work.
I guess I better set aside the distractions (like this blog!) and get to it. See you on the other side!
3.05.2009
post-it notes
Here's a huge pet peeve. I'm talking to someone, and for whatever reason, he or she needs to give me information (e.g. phone number, email address, website). This person grabs a post-it note (or sticky note as some call them) from a nearby desk, scribbles the pertinent info on the demon paper, and hands it to me.I immediately think, "What am I supposed to do with this? I can't put it in my pocket because it's got the sticky part on the top. I guess I could fold it in half and essentially stick it to itself, but now the (insert pertinent info here) is hard to read. What a worthless invention." I have actually awkwardly carried the post-it note to my desk, written the info on a normal piece of paper and then, with malice, destroyed the post-it note.
Not only am I incredibly bothered by the annoyance that is the sticky section of a post-it note, but I feel that it's ethically irresponsible to provide people with yet another way to clutter their lives. We have all seen this kind of thing:
Drives me out of my mind. The evil creators of post-it notes should repent in sackcloth and ashes for the crimes to humanity.
2.26.2009
everything is amazing, nobody is happy
This is one of the funnier things I've seen in a long time. Enjoy:
2.03.2009
just a seminarian
I'm going to rant for a minute, so bear with me. There's a lot of talk these days (and in years past too) about how formal biblical education has the tendency of decreasing one's spirituality. In other words, the academic focus and the attention to cognitive processes when approaching the scripture and theology are in direct opposition to how one is "supposed" to read the Bible: with the heart, soul, or even spirit.
In fact, so many who have gone through seminary or any other biblical education seem to make similar statements: that Bible school makes them less spiritual.
A lot of this, as I mentioned above, has to do with the approach to scripture and theology of the seminarian; an approach that is analytical and cerebral. It's implied that by reading the Bible this way, one cannot have a spiritual experience. In order to have a spiritual experience of some sort, one has to return to reading the Bible as he or she did before he or she started biblical education.
I have a serious issue with this for several reasons. First, I have had so many deeply spiritual experiences while analyzing text. I have learned some deep truths about myself, the way God works in the world, the nature of humanity, etc. These have all produced some significant changes in my life along with some times of incredible spiritual connection to God.
Which brings me to my second problem with this statement about seminary: It's dualistic (and, in my opinion, dangerous). This is something I'm only beginning to ponder, but I think there's something in it. The dualism is that there is mind and there is spirit, and the two work independently. So when we analyze text, we are engaging out mind and not necessarily our spirit or soul. The same is true in reverse. When we are reading the text for some spiritual meaning, we aren't using our cognitive abilities. In fact, some would urge the reader to put aside his or her "intellect" (or maybe analytical skills) in order to approach the text in a spiritual way.
Now the answer to this dualism has been something to this effect: "The key is to engage both your intellect and your spirit and to hold them both in a healthy tension." Sounds good, but to me, it's still dualistic. Sure, the goal to have both intellect and spirit be equal is good, but this still maintains they idea that they are separate.
I want to move toward a more holistic view of the human being; like the what we see in the OT. In the Jewish mind, there is no outside and inside of the body; no spirit and flesh; no body and soul. We are whole beings.
And in reality, can we really separate our "intellect" from our "spirit?" Are we really able to function fully in one without engaging the other? Or, stated more directly, aren't they really the same thing? Where is my spirit? Point to it. Is it in a different location than my intellect?
All of this is really premature. I've only begun to mull it over. But I know for sure I get exceedingly frustrated when I hear of seminarians who claim an academic reading of scripture strips them of their spirituality. I also know for sure that I want to understand this human life we have in a more holistic way. Am I flesh? Am I spirit? Am I soul? Or am I human?
In fact, so many who have gone through seminary or any other biblical education seem to make similar statements: that Bible school makes them less spiritual.
A lot of this, as I mentioned above, has to do with the approach to scripture and theology of the seminarian; an approach that is analytical and cerebral. It's implied that by reading the Bible this way, one cannot have a spiritual experience. In order to have a spiritual experience of some sort, one has to return to reading the Bible as he or she did before he or she started biblical education.
I have a serious issue with this for several reasons. First, I have had so many deeply spiritual experiences while analyzing text. I have learned some deep truths about myself, the way God works in the world, the nature of humanity, etc. These have all produced some significant changes in my life along with some times of incredible spiritual connection to God.
Which brings me to my second problem with this statement about seminary: It's dualistic (and, in my opinion, dangerous). This is something I'm only beginning to ponder, but I think there's something in it. The dualism is that there is mind and there is spirit, and the two work independently. So when we analyze text, we are engaging out mind and not necessarily our spirit or soul. The same is true in reverse. When we are reading the text for some spiritual meaning, we aren't using our cognitive abilities. In fact, some would urge the reader to put aside his or her "intellect" (or maybe analytical skills) in order to approach the text in a spiritual way.
Now the answer to this dualism has been something to this effect: "The key is to engage both your intellect and your spirit and to hold them both in a healthy tension." Sounds good, but to me, it's still dualistic. Sure, the goal to have both intellect and spirit be equal is good, but this still maintains they idea that they are separate.
I want to move toward a more holistic view of the human being; like the what we see in the OT. In the Jewish mind, there is no outside and inside of the body; no spirit and flesh; no body and soul. We are whole beings.
And in reality, can we really separate our "intellect" from our "spirit?" Are we really able to function fully in one without engaging the other? Or, stated more directly, aren't they really the same thing? Where is my spirit? Point to it. Is it in a different location than my intellect?
All of this is really premature. I've only begun to mull it over. But I know for sure I get exceedingly frustrated when I hear of seminarians who claim an academic reading of scripture strips them of their spirituality. I also know for sure that I want to understand this human life we have in a more holistic way. Am I flesh? Am I spirit? Am I soul? Or am I human?
1.20.2009
planes are annoying
Since I've moved to SoCal, I've been on a lot of planes. Nikki and I go back to the east coast several times each year, and most of those trips are not direct. So needless to say, we've been on a lot of planes.
I thought it would be fun to make a little list of some of the things that irritate me when I'm on a plane. Feel free to comment and add to the list.
1. Seating stress (window, isle, front, back, who's going to sit next to me, etc)
2. People behind you who use your seat back to get up
3. Tiny bathrooms (I actually can't stand straight in the forward bathroom)
4. Lack of information (why aren't we moving? How much longer?)
5. Restriction on "electronic devices" (exactly why can't I leave my iPod on when we takeoff?)
6. People who take forever to get themselves situated before sitting down
7. People who talk to the person next to them like they're at the other end of the plane
8. Kicking kids
9. De-icing (could this process take any longer?)
10. Reading lights that are as bright as the sun
There's a start. Add some to the list...
I thought it would be fun to make a little list of some of the things that irritate me when I'm on a plane. Feel free to comment and add to the list.
1. Seating stress (window, isle, front, back, who's going to sit next to me, etc)
2. People behind you who use your seat back to get up
3. Tiny bathrooms (I actually can't stand straight in the forward bathroom)
4. Lack of information (why aren't we moving? How much longer?)
5. Restriction on "electronic devices" (exactly why can't I leave my iPod on when we takeoff?)
6. People who take forever to get themselves situated before sitting down
7. People who talk to the person next to them like they're at the other end of the plane
8. Kicking kids
9. De-icing (could this process take any longer?)
10. Reading lights that are as bright as the sun
There's a start. Add some to the list...
1.12.2009
two or three
Those who know me know I'm a stickler for context when it comes to reading the Bible. To me it's incredibly important to know the cultural/historical context of a passage in order to understand the intended meaning. I've seen many verses, when taken out of context, used to say all sorts of craziness. But sometimes the discussion of context need not go any further than the immediate textual context of a passage (read: the verses around a particular passage).
For a long time I've been very frustrated by a specific example of this. If you've gone to church on any kind of regular basis, you've probably heard Matthew 18:20 quoted: "For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them." I've heard it used during prayers, in worship, and even in sermons. The idea intended is that when a group of Christians get together, Jesus is there.
But when we look at the preceding verses, a different reading stands out. Jesus is talking to his disciples about the very specific topic of church discipline, and he is essentially telling them that whatever decision they make in terms of church discipline will be supported by him. So when two or three gather together to make a decision about what to do with someone in the Christian community who has done something wrong, it is as if Jesus is there supporting the decision.
There's a lot of weird stuff in the passage, including Jesus talking about things bound on earth being bound in heaven, and things loosed on earth being loosed in heaven. I'd have to study a little more to really understand what he's trying to say.
But the fact remains the passage so commonly quoted is often removed from its context to express some kind of point.
And here is where I'm really confused. What point is being made? That Jesus is only around when two or three are gathered? Are we saying Jesus is not with us when we're alone? If so, then why pray? Exactly what are we trying to say here?
My confusion grew when I read Henri Nouwen's, In the Name of Jesus a few weeks ago. In his book, he quotes this very passage to illuminate the importance of ministry being done in groups and not by individuals. But is that what Jesus is saying? Maybe more so than what others claim this passage means. But I still can't shake the sense that we are missing the point of this passage, and I'm frustrated to read that someone like Henri Nouwen uses Matthew 18:20 in a way I feel is inappropriate.
I don't want to rule out the fact that I am wrong with my understanding of the text. I may be. I'm often wrong more than I'm right. But this is something that has bothered me for quite some time, and it is an example to me how often we misuse scripture because we fail to consider context - whatever context that may be.
For a long time I've been very frustrated by a specific example of this. If you've gone to church on any kind of regular basis, you've probably heard Matthew 18:20 quoted: "For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them." I've heard it used during prayers, in worship, and even in sermons. The idea intended is that when a group of Christians get together, Jesus is there.
But when we look at the preceding verses, a different reading stands out. Jesus is talking to his disciples about the very specific topic of church discipline, and he is essentially telling them that whatever decision they make in terms of church discipline will be supported by him. So when two or three gather together to make a decision about what to do with someone in the Christian community who has done something wrong, it is as if Jesus is there supporting the decision.
There's a lot of weird stuff in the passage, including Jesus talking about things bound on earth being bound in heaven, and things loosed on earth being loosed in heaven. I'd have to study a little more to really understand what he's trying to say.
But the fact remains the passage so commonly quoted is often removed from its context to express some kind of point.
And here is where I'm really confused. What point is being made? That Jesus is only around when two or three are gathered? Are we saying Jesus is not with us when we're alone? If so, then why pray? Exactly what are we trying to say here?
My confusion grew when I read Henri Nouwen's, In the Name of Jesus a few weeks ago. In his book, he quotes this very passage to illuminate the importance of ministry being done in groups and not by individuals. But is that what Jesus is saying? Maybe more so than what others claim this passage means. But I still can't shake the sense that we are missing the point of this passage, and I'm frustrated to read that someone like Henri Nouwen uses Matthew 18:20 in a way I feel is inappropriate.
I don't want to rule out the fact that I am wrong with my understanding of the text. I may be. I'm often wrong more than I'm right. But this is something that has bothered me for quite some time, and it is an example to me how often we misuse scripture because we fail to consider context - whatever context that may be.
12.15.2008
no room upstairs
Christmas is 10 days away, and I've been thinking about the birth narratives of Jesus. We wonderful Christians have such an easy time romanticizing the things we read in the Bible, and the birth narratives are no exception. Honestly, I'm not sure why we do this... maybe we're insecure about the stories and we feel the need to spice them up. Maybe we don't get the point so we make up our own. Maybe we just love the dramatic so much that we need to over dramatize things so they appeal to us.
So what about the birth narratives of Jesus? We all know the story: Mary and Joseph are traveling on a cold night, trying to get to Bethlehem. Mary is obviously pregnant, and they need a place to stay and fast! They go door to door to the different inns finding none that are vacant. Finally a kind innkeeper allows them to stay in his barn with the animals. This is where Jesus is born, and Mary and Joseph nudge the animals away from the feed to lay Jesus in the feed-trough. Soon Mary, Joseph, Jesus, and the animals are joined by shepherds and kings and apparently some kid with a drum.
Sounds about right, doesn't it? The crazy thing is that most of this info is not in the birth narratives. Most of what we know of the birth of Jesus is from Luke 2, with Matthew helping a little (Matthew adds the wise men, but some time after the birth).
Luke's story goes a little more like this: Emperor Augustus decrees a census (and a tax) be taken, and as a result, everyone has to go to their home towns (well, the men do at least). Since Joseph is from Bethlehem, that's where he goes. At some point after they are in Bethlehem, Mary goes in to labor and gives birth. After birth, she wraps Jesus in some infant clothes and places him in a manger/crib, and she does this, as the text indicates, because there is "no place for them in the inn" (Luke 2:7). Later, some shepherds, after hearing from angels that the Messiah is born, go to see Jesus.
And that's it. No innkeeper. No going door to door. No sense of urgency because she's about to have the baby. Not many of the details we're used to.
In fact, the word Luke uses for "inn" does not necessarily refer to a "hotel" of sorts. Luke uses this same word one other time in his gospel, but this time to refer to the upper room where Jesus had his last meal with his disciples (22:7-12). Even more interesting is that Luke uses a completely different word later in his gospel (10:34) to refer to an actual inn or guest lodging.
So it's very likely Luke is referring to the upper room of a private house when he uses the word "inn," changing the details we know so well just a little. Mary and Joseph find that there is no room in the upper room of Josephs ancestral house (where they most likely would have stayed during the census period), so they move to the lower level where the animals are kept, kind of like the garage. The most obvious place to lay a newborn in this kind of garage is one of the feed-troughs. Incidentally, the word for "manger" can also be translated "crib," but "manger" is probably a better translation here.
So what's the point? Why does it even matter? I'm not completely sure, and maybe you can weigh in on this, but I think it's generally a bad practice to romanticize biblical texts. Maybe I'm being cynical when I write this, but I would rather focus on the intended meaning of the texts rather than spice them up with fancy details, especially when those details are misleading.
What can we say about the birth narratives of Jesus? Well, especially in Luke, the announcement of the in-breaking reign of God and the redemption of humanity is made to a bunch of shepherds, not to kings and rulers. And this king has a birth that is not special in any way. He's not born in a palace and wrapped in purple cloth. He's born like everyone else and in normal circumstances. He represents what the humility of humanity means. Even in his birth, he identifies with us; with normal people and not with the most powerful and influential.
If anything, this is the beauty of the Christmas story: That God has come and is setting up a new way of life; one that is not based on power structures and amassing wealth but on humility, joy, and peace.
To me, that is a powerful message on its own.
So what about the birth narratives of Jesus? We all know the story: Mary and Joseph are traveling on a cold night, trying to get to Bethlehem. Mary is obviously pregnant, and they need a place to stay and fast! They go door to door to the different inns finding none that are vacant. Finally a kind innkeeper allows them to stay in his barn with the animals. This is where Jesus is born, and Mary and Joseph nudge the animals away from the feed to lay Jesus in the feed-trough. Soon Mary, Joseph, Jesus, and the animals are joined by shepherds and kings and apparently some kid with a drum.
Sounds about right, doesn't it? The crazy thing is that most of this info is not in the birth narratives. Most of what we know of the birth of Jesus is from Luke 2, with Matthew helping a little (Matthew adds the wise men, but some time after the birth).
Luke's story goes a little more like this: Emperor Augustus decrees a census (and a tax) be taken, and as a result, everyone has to go to their home towns (well, the men do at least). Since Joseph is from Bethlehem, that's where he goes. At some point after they are in Bethlehem, Mary goes in to labor and gives birth. After birth, she wraps Jesus in some infant clothes and places him in a manger/crib, and she does this, as the text indicates, because there is "no place for them in the inn" (Luke 2:7). Later, some shepherds, after hearing from angels that the Messiah is born, go to see Jesus.
And that's it. No innkeeper. No going door to door. No sense of urgency because she's about to have the baby. Not many of the details we're used to.
In fact, the word Luke uses for "inn" does not necessarily refer to a "hotel" of sorts. Luke uses this same word one other time in his gospel, but this time to refer to the upper room where Jesus had his last meal with his disciples (22:7-12). Even more interesting is that Luke uses a completely different word later in his gospel (10:34) to refer to an actual inn or guest lodging.
So it's very likely Luke is referring to the upper room of a private house when he uses the word "inn," changing the details we know so well just a little. Mary and Joseph find that there is no room in the upper room of Josephs ancestral house (where they most likely would have stayed during the census period), so they move to the lower level where the animals are kept, kind of like the garage. The most obvious place to lay a newborn in this kind of garage is one of the feed-troughs. Incidentally, the word for "manger" can also be translated "crib," but "manger" is probably a better translation here.
So what's the point? Why does it even matter? I'm not completely sure, and maybe you can weigh in on this, but I think it's generally a bad practice to romanticize biblical texts. Maybe I'm being cynical when I write this, but I would rather focus on the intended meaning of the texts rather than spice them up with fancy details, especially when those details are misleading.
What can we say about the birth narratives of Jesus? Well, especially in Luke, the announcement of the in-breaking reign of God and the redemption of humanity is made to a bunch of shepherds, not to kings and rulers. And this king has a birth that is not special in any way. He's not born in a palace and wrapped in purple cloth. He's born like everyone else and in normal circumstances. He represents what the humility of humanity means. Even in his birth, he identifies with us; with normal people and not with the most powerful and influential.
If anything, this is the beauty of the Christmas story: That God has come and is setting up a new way of life; one that is not based on power structures and amassing wealth but on humility, joy, and peace.
To me, that is a powerful message on its own.
11.24.2008
steep thoughts
I just want to write something really deep. I want to blow your mind grapes with my incredible insights. But I can't think of anything good. Shouldn't I just be brimming with depth... wait, does that sentence even make sense? Can you brim with depth? Isn't that like exploding with insight? Or being manically reflective? Or slowly rushing? Or maybe silky turbulence? Or unflushing a toilet?
I've derailed.
I'm thirsty.
I've derailed.
I'm thirsty.
10.21.2008
CPBS
Wherever you stand on the election, one thing is clear. Both candidates have been completely silent on an issue that plagues America every day:
Creamy Peanut Butter Supremacy.
That's right. Forget the financial crisis and the environment. This is a serious issue. Every grocery store near my house AND the Target show blatant texture bias toward creamy. A consumer can find cans of creamy peanut butter in every size, from the personal to the family size. But try to find a fair representation of chunky. You're lucky to find a tiny little can of it shoved way back on the shelf.
It is a sad day when chunky peanut butter lovers are not treated equally, and that day has come. I dream of the day when peanut butter will not be judged by texture and consistency but by those who love the product.
Please, end creamy peanut butter's reign on the peanut butter isle. Support chunky. That's change we all need.
Creamy Peanut Butter Supremacy.
That's right. Forget the financial crisis and the environment. This is a serious issue. Every grocery store near my house AND the Target show blatant texture bias toward creamy. A consumer can find cans of creamy peanut butter in every size, from the personal to the family size. But try to find a fair representation of chunky. You're lucky to find a tiny little can of it shoved way back on the shelf.
It is a sad day when chunky peanut butter lovers are not treated equally, and that day has come. I dream of the day when peanut butter will not be judged by texture and consistency but by those who love the product.
Please, end creamy peanut butter's reign on the peanut butter isle. Support chunky. That's change we all need.
5.16.2008
...or it's yours for FREE!
Ok, time for another pointless rant. You've all heard the marketing where a retailer offers to beat anyone's advertised price or they will give you the product for free. If you're from LA, you know about Larry the mattress guy who uses this technique... (You're killing me Larry!)
I'm in Binghamton, NY this weekend and I heard a used car advertiser on the radio saying he will beat any advertised price or he will give you the car for free plus an extra $5000. "5 Gs and the keys!" Ridiculous!
And let me tell you why. Do you really think these people are going to give you the product for free? Let's say I want to buy a 06 Accord from the guy. He's selling one for $18000. I find the same one advertised for $16500. So his choices are to sell it to me for less than that (beat the advertised price) or give me the car plus $5000. Uh, gee. What's he gonna do?! Will he take maybe a couple hundred dollar hit on the car or lose the car and five grand? Or will Larry sell me a mattress for a little less than he would like, or will he give me the mattress and lose all the money he had in it?
This is just the stupidest marketing ploy I've ever heard. Am I the only one that sees through this crap? Am I the only one so entirely furious about this? Ok, I'm not really that mad, but come on! I think we're smarter than this.
I guess one thing these people could be saying is, "I can sell this product for cheaper than anyone else because I paid less for it than other retailers, but you have to do the work to get the cheap price. You have to find it cheaper and prove it or I'm taking you to the bank."
Nice.
I'm in Binghamton, NY this weekend and I heard a used car advertiser on the radio saying he will beat any advertised price or he will give you the car for free plus an extra $5000. "5 Gs and the keys!" Ridiculous!
And let me tell you why. Do you really think these people are going to give you the product for free? Let's say I want to buy a 06 Accord from the guy. He's selling one for $18000. I find the same one advertised for $16500. So his choices are to sell it to me for less than that (beat the advertised price) or give me the car plus $5000. Uh, gee. What's he gonna do?! Will he take maybe a couple hundred dollar hit on the car or lose the car and five grand? Or will Larry sell me a mattress for a little less than he would like, or will he give me the mattress and lose all the money he had in it?
This is just the stupidest marketing ploy I've ever heard. Am I the only one that sees through this crap? Am I the only one so entirely furious about this? Ok, I'm not really that mad, but come on! I think we're smarter than this.
I guess one thing these people could be saying is, "I can sell this product for cheaper than anyone else because I paid less for it than other retailers, but you have to do the work to get the cheap price. You have to find it cheaper and prove it or I'm taking you to the bank."
Nice.
4.17.2008
tired
My new schedule is killing me! Let's review:
Monday:
Fuller Admissions: 8 to 5
Greek Reading: 6:30 to 8:30
Tuesday:
IHC: 9 to 5
Wednesday:
Fuller Admissions: 8 to 3
Perspectives on Christ and Culture: 3 to 6
Greek Reading: 6:30 to 8:30
Thursday:
IHC 1 to 9
Friday:
Fuller Admissions: 8 to 12
Softball: 12:30 to 3 (ok, that's just fun)
Saturday:
IHC: 3:30 to 7:30
Sunday:
IHC 7:30 to 12:30
Oh, and class work somewhere in between all of those.
But one thing I can say is that I love my new Thursday mornings... sleep in a little. Do some work. Leave by 12:30. It's great!
Not much of a blog here, I realize. But it's been a while, and I can't keep my fan waiting.
Monday:
Fuller Admissions: 8 to 5
Greek Reading: 6:30 to 8:30
Tuesday:
IHC: 9 to 5
Wednesday:
Fuller Admissions: 8 to 3
Perspectives on Christ and Culture: 3 to 6
Greek Reading: 6:30 to 8:30
Thursday:
IHC 1 to 9
Friday:
Fuller Admissions: 8 to 12
Softball: 12:30 to 3 (ok, that's just fun)
Saturday:
IHC: 3:30 to 7:30
Sunday:
IHC 7:30 to 12:30
Oh, and class work somewhere in between all of those.
But one thing I can say is that I love my new Thursday mornings... sleep in a little. Do some work. Leave by 12:30. It's great!
Not much of a blog here, I realize. But it's been a while, and I can't keep my fan waiting.
3.12.2008
I heart diet Coke
I'm over this whole "Diet Coke is so horrible" thing. "Don't drink anything with aspartame in it! It's a poison!" Right. So is caffeine. So is water for God's sake! You can actually die by drinking too much water. So get off it already! People have been drinking diet soda for a long time with no detriment to their health.
Sure if you drink it in huge quantities, it will probably mess you up. But so will too much pasta or too much fruit. I know someone who ate too many carrots and drank too much carrot juice and literally turned orange.
That being said, I do want to warn everyone of the dangers of drinking Diet Cherry Chocolate Dr. Pepper. This stuff is a poison to your taste buds. It's like drinking a liquid tootsie pop. Nasty! For the love of real diet soda, stay away from this filth.
Sure if you drink it in huge quantities, it will probably mess you up. But so will too much pasta or too much fruit. I know someone who ate too many carrots and drank too much carrot juice and literally turned orange.
That being said, I do want to warn everyone of the dangers of drinking Diet Cherry Chocolate Dr. Pepper. This stuff is a poison to your taste buds. It's like drinking a liquid tootsie pop. Nasty! For the love of real diet soda, stay away from this filth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
