An Irishman moves into a tiny hamlet in County Kerry, walks into the pub and promptly orders three beers.
The bartender raises his eyebrows, but serves the man three beers, which he drinks quietly at a table, alone.
An hour later, the man has finished the three beers and orders three more.
This happens yet again.
The next evening the man again orders and drinks three beers at a time, several times. Soon the entire town is whispering about the Man Who Orders Three Beers.
Finally, a week later, the bartender broaches the subject on behalf of the town. “I don’t mean to pry, but folks around here are wondering why you always order three beers?”
‘Tis odd, isn’t it?” the man replies, “You see, I have two brothers, one went to America, and the other to Australia. We promised each other that we would always order an
extra two beers whenever we drank as a way of keeping up the family bond.”
The bartender and the whole town was pleased with this answer, and soon the Man Who Orders Three Beers became a local celebrity and source of pride to the hamlet,
even to the extent that out-of-towners would come to watch him drink.
Then, one day, the man comes in and orders only two beers. The bartender pours them with a heavy heart. This continues for the rest of the evening – he orders only two beers.
The word flies around town. Prayers are offered for the soul of one of the brothers.
The next day, the bartender says to the man, “Folks around here, me first of all, want to offer condolences to you for the death of your brother. You know-the two beers
and all…”
The man ponders this for a moment, then replies, “You’ll be happy to hear that my two brothers are alive and well.
It’s just that I, myself, have decided to give up drinking for Lent.”
—
Delightful story, and fitting, as I have decided to give up beer for Lent. Alas, if I could do it his way…!
Great night at the pub last night. Nine of us grabbed a pint and settled in for a good discussion, huddled around the table as if seeking respite from the snow drifts just outside.
Jesus and Mohammed
A. showed up, who promptly styled himself ‘kinda the local guru.’ Then quickly thought better of it and shifted to ‘kinda the local guy.’ He’d been reading up on the history of Islam and noted to us that “Mohammed had to work hard. He fought with people, he had enemies, he bled. He worked to establish a religion. Unlike Jesus. Jesus didn’t have much opposition. He had it easy, just healing people and floating on the water. Mohammed though, man… that guy…”
I asked him if he had converted to Islam, with this newfound admiration of the prophet (PBUH). He said no.
After that little soliloquy we hit the sheet. First question, “Do you have any New Year’s resolutions?” Most people admitted that they did not. R. said that she often takes the New Year as a time to take stock of where things are in her life and seek to continue to grow both personally and professionally. I noted that I sort of do the same. N. (who brought the pretzels) noted that her son always resolves to give up crack cocaine. That way he never fails to live up to his resolution.
We spent some time discussing why resolutions tend to be individual (we can’t make anyone else do something), but also noted the benefits of making resolutions with someone else or with a community of some sort (accountability, mutuality). We wondered about a couple in a relationship making resolutions. S. noted that she sort of does that with her husband, but that then they tend to pursue the resolutions individually, or each in their own way. Yet there is something about a communal effort that can create energy and certainly can hold one to what one has said. The other S. noted that companies and organizations often do the same thing but call them ‘goals’ or ‘plans.’
Then the question (contributed by C., who was down in Kzoo doing PT South) was: “Should Pub Theology have a 2012 resolution?” At this point the question of location came up, with RBB’s upcoming move to 16th Street. We had heard that the pub portion of the new location was not going to be as big a priority, so it is unclear whether there will be adequate space. There is talk of something new coming into the Warehouse district to take RB’s place, perhaps Short’s or someone else. It would be tempting to stay. Another possibility is the new Filling Station brewery coming in by the library. In any case, Pub Theology resolves to keep meeting (wherever we end up) and being the place in Northern Michigan for beer, conversation, and God.
Topic 2: “Individualism is a poor container for the Gospel.”
This was generally agreed, as S. (with the glasses) noted that “We can’t all play a solo at the same time.” The other S. (reading glasses) noted that individualism tends to cause people to apprehend what they believe is true about the world and why, rather than take someone else’s word for it, or simply buying into the community’s agreed upon take, and tends to cause people to move away from faith, so yes, it is a poor container for the gospel. B. highlighted the fact that Christianity is not meant to be an individualistic faith. It is not simply ‘my spirituality’ or ‘me and Jesus.’ Rather, it is meant to be experienced in community, lived out in community, and that when a group of people together take following Jesus seriously, and live into the Gospel, and live out the Gospel, that it is a powerful statement to those looking on. R. worried that such a focus on community would drown out people’s ability to be individuals. That there would be space for the ‘other’, whether that is someone divorced, or gay, or recovering, or whatever. B. noted that ideally the Gospel is inclusive and calls for a community that is open. Such a community ought to reflect the diversity of individuals who all come together because of who God is and because he has made and called each of them. It was concluded that there is such a thing as good individualism, and good communalism, but that both can go awry if we are not careful.
Topic 3: “In light of the 2012 end of time idea, do you think the redemption of Christ will come in this world — or does it require a new world?”
S. noted that there were 3 billion people on the planet when he was born, and there are now over 7 billion. R. (who refuses resolutions) noted that “The world will end.” B. asked, “Who here thinks they will live to see the end?” Most people said no. But then N. (who was back at long last! and brought the chips) blurted out, “What are y’all talking about?”
As the rest of the table continued to debate the end of the world, I got up to get another pint. This time a Dark Squirrel Lager.
The last three questions all sort of related:
4. What would have to happen for the believer not to believe?
5. What would have to happen for the unbeliever to believe?
6. Is theology (or what kind of theology is) compatible with belief in the constancy of nature?
I don’t have time (or the recall) to give you the rest of the conversation.
But a few highlights:
R. asked, “Why does it say unbeliever? Shouldn’t it be nonbeliever? What does unbeliever mean?”
N. (chips) pleaded, “Damn it! Call it Spirit, energy, essence, whatever! We all believe in it.”
N. (pretzels) noted, “It’s time to start preaching the stuff we’ve known for 200 years.” (referring to biblical scholarship that is often known about by seminaries and preachers but kept from the congregation because ‘they’re not ready for it’.)
And a couple more from the ‘local guru’:
“I think about time differently than most people.”
“Are any of you communists?” (This out of nowhere, in the middle of a completely unrelated discussion)
“Do you think it’s better to show weakness, or to hide weakness?”
And that’s a wrap! If you were there and care to fill us in on more of what happened, feel free. If you weren’t there, but have any thoughts on the above topics – post them below!
1. Do you have any New Year’s resolutions?
Why is it that they tend to be individual?
What would a communal resolution look like?
Should PT have a 2012 resolution?
2. “Individualism is a poor container for the Gospel.”
3. In light of the 2012 end of time idea, do you think the redemption of Christ will come in this world — or does it require a new world?
4. What would have to happen for the believer *not* to believe?
5. What would have to happen for the unbeliever *to* believe?
6. Is theology (or what kind of theology is) compatible with belief in the constancy of nature?
“For over 2,000 years the world has tried hard to erase the memory of the perfect conservative, and His principles of compassion, caring and common sense.”
What do you think? Did Jesus have an uncommon amount of common sense?
I’m pretty sure Jesus’s principles were anything but common sense. In fact, in my recollection, they were the complete opposite. The story of the Gospel is Jesus openly challenging the prevailing norms, social structures, and power dynamics of his day and turning them on their heads with a radical message of humility, non-violence, selflessness and faith in the seemingly impossible.
But what do I know? I have been accused of lacking common sense myself.
Whose idea is it to recap a discussion on theology over beer a week later? Not a great idea.
But here goes anyway.
These were last week’s topics, and I’ll do my best to give a couple thoughts that were expressed:
1. What is your favorite part about summer?
2. How does one move forward after a tragedy? How do you explain it?
3. Is history science or art? (See recent Paul Revere revisionism)
4. “Children are bad at lying for the same reason that adults are. We are born with a conscience (which is God’s voice in our soul) that says it is wrong for us to bear false witness.”
5. The Declaration of Independence dogmatically bases all rights on the fact that God created all men equal; and it is right; for if they were not created equal, they were certainly evolved unequal. There is no basis for democracy except in a dogma about the divine origin of man.
6. “The point of the universe is the hallowing of God’s name.”
Favorite parts about summer: no socks, the beach, SUNSHINE!, garden parties, SUNSHINE! and so on… in short – we’ve waited a long time for summer, and woohoo! it’s here!
Topic no.2 was a much more sobering one, given the tragedy with Carly Lewis, a local teenager who was killed in Traverse City.
How do you move forward after something like this? How do you explain it?
Most said that there is no explaining a tragedy, other than giving the straightforward account of what happened: so-and-so did this, and so-and-so did that, and X or Y was the result. It sucks, but that is what happened. Most felt it was beyond us, or even inappropriate, to try to give any larger philosophical or speculative explanations about the bigger picture.
That said, many felt that what is most important is how one responds to a tragedy. One can wallow in it, perhaps even remain paralyzed by it. One can find something deep inside that they didn’t have before. One can find communal support that he or she wasn’t aware of before. And one can perhaps be a source of help for others experiencing similar difficult situations.
But much of that is down the road. The immediate reality is grief, shock, anger – raw emotion. And no one can tell anyone else how they ought to respond to such things.
Some personal stories were shared around this topic, and I think it was a meaningful and important time to spend together.
Topic no.3: is history science or art? Did Paul Revere ring bells while warning the British about American weapons?
Here’s a re-enactment by Stephen Colbert of Paul Revere’s famous midnight ride:
4. We noted that children are actually quite decent at lying, and adults perhaps even moreso. But what does lying say about someone? And have you ever experienced someone blatantly lying to you and you knew it? What did you do?
5. Everyone agreed this quote was bunk.
6. One person responded: “I don’t think that is the point of the universe.” Then he rephrased, “Or maybe that’s part of it – but it isn’t the whole thing.” What do you think?
A great turnout last Thursday, and some very good conversation. With a pint from the cask in hand, we set out to respond to six questions I took from an evangelism questionnaire that I had used in college.
The questions surprisingly created a lot of good conversation and sharing about things, prompting us to wonder about the effectiveness of such a questionnaire, not to mention the idea of accosting random people to talk to them about deep personal matters.
The questionnaire is as follows:
1. How would you describe your life in one word?
2. What three things do you most desire out of life?
3. What do you think “God” is like?
4. Who, in your opinion, is Jesus Christ?
5. If you were to die tonight and found yourself standing before God, and he asked you, “Why should I let you into My heaven?” How would you respond?
6. If you could know with 100% certainty how you could get into heaven, would you be interested in hearing about that?
The first two questions created opportunity for us to share some things about ourselves that our normal questions didn’t necessarily prompt. So that was very cool.
The third and fourth questions began to lead us into theological territory – also somewhat revealing in the group, and certainly would be in an interaction with a stranger.
It seems, though, that it is all a warmup to no.5: the evangelical zinger. Give me the password that gets you into heaven. Answer correctly and you win! The prize: eternity in heaven. Answer wrong, and (cue the Price is Right wrong answer theme), sorry friend, the flames await you. Which made us wonder about the typical evangelical understanding of salvation, of evangelism, of faith, and all that. Is life really just a big prelude, and the goal, after all the major events, life learning, relationship building, personal growth, etc, is simply to answer a question correctly? And if I didn’t study adequately for the test, or if I somehow was never properly prepped, I’m doomed? That all seems like a cruel joke.
Perhaps a short answer might point to something deeper and and true in a sense, but the idea of having to answer a question at the gate seems sort of silly, and falls right into all the old cliches about St. Peter manning the door.
And of course question no.6 makes the whole thing seem like a sales gimmick. If you could be 100% certain of how to get no.5 right – would you be interested? In fact, we have a money-back guarantee! (Too bad you’ll be too dead to claim it though!)
We then began wondering about the whole idea of street evangelism, beach evangelism, door-to-door evangelism, etc. Can deep and serious matters be discussed or entered into at a meaningful level in a random encounter with a stranger? Should the gospel be peddled like it’s the next-best vacuum? Where do relationships come into play? Where does community fit in? What about discipleship? What about going forward?
Ocean City boardwalk
I noted that in my experience of two summers doing beach evangelism in South Jersey, at its best, we had meaningful encounters with people and then encouraged them to find a local church to connect to. Even better were our relationships with locals through our summer jobs. But you wonder how effective this ‘drive-by evangelism’ really was for some random person on the boardwalk who was simply trying to figure out how best to devour the delicious elephant ear they were holding to suddenly realize the more pressing matter of hell was being shoved down their throat. As they stared dumbfounded at you, the eager college student with all the answers and the salvation guarantee, you wonder if there were moments we actually did more harm than good.
There’s a great post on the blog Slacktivist about evangelism (thanks, Steve!), where the following is noted:
Without relationship, it’s not really evangelism, merely sales. Evangelism should never be anything like sales. This is not a transaction, not commerce.
No doubt. They also note the important point that listening is key. Too often we are armed with ‘the answers’ and enter into a conversation so that we can tell someone what’s what. This is not a new tact:
The Cherokee Baptist theologian Bill Baldridge tells a story about white missionaries who arrived at the Indian settlement. “We are here to tell you the story of our God and of salvation,” they announced.
The elders welcomed them, brought them food, and gathered around to hear this story. The missionaries, pleased by this enthusiastic audience, decided to go with the Long Version. They started at the beginning and over the next several hours they told the whole great Christian saga of creation, fall and redemption.
When at last the missionaries were finished, the elders thanked them. “This is a good story,” the elders said. “Now we would like to share with you our story.”
The missionaries were furious. Hadn’t these people been listening? Didn’t they realize that they had just heard the One True Story and that their old story, whatever it was, no longer mattered?
The missionaries abruptly left, shaking the dust off their shoes and heading out to find some other group more receptive to to their message.
Sad, but I’m sure I could dig back and find similar instances from my own evangelistic efforts.
So it was a good night at the Pub last week, and I look forward to the next one, as learn to share our stories, our perspectives, our lives, and as we do so, may we remember that ‘our stories are not an argument.’ They are us. May we give them the respect they deserve, and not merely use (or abuse!) them to win a debate, but rather share them with one another, even as they are unfolding at that very moment.
An interesting night last week. If I remember right, I can’t remember what we discussed. So no recap, just the sheets:
Topics:
1. ‘The meal table is the birthplace of culture.’
How are we shaped by our eating practices?
2. “What comes into our minds when we think about God is the most important thing about us.”
What do you think?
3. “There are no facts. Only interpretations.”
Discuss objectivity vs subjectivity.
4. “Inerrantist dogma is as much a human construction as the biblical criticism that inerrantists deride.”
5. Why does beer go through your system so fast?
6. Is there any divinely-infused meaning to human existence, or is it all just senseless?
Backside:
Local thoughts on the rapture (these are actual quotes):
“Hold on to what is going to be raptured out of here and forget the rest.”
“Forget your stupid careers and businesses.”
“Forget about how much gas is gonna cost. That isn’t the kind of thing we need to worry about.”
“We just need to get by until we can get out.”
“I’m not saying you should stockpile, but I think every Christian should have at least two or three weeks worth of food in their homes.”
“Take all your money out of the bank and go on a vacation.”
“There is no rapture.” (OK, this last one was me).
Old Jewish story:
A traveler arrived in a village in the middle of winter to find an old man shivering in the cold outside the synagogue. “What are you doing here?” asked the traveler.
“I’m waiting for the coming of the messiah,”
“That must be an important job,” said the traveler. “The community must pay you a lot of money.”
“No, not at all. They just let me sit here on this bench.
Once in a while someone gives me a little food.”
“That must be hard. But even if they don’t pay you, they
must honor you for doing this important work.”
“No, not at all, they think I’m crazy.”
“I don’t understand. They don’t pay you, they don’t
respect you. You sit in the cold, shivering and hungry
What kind of job is this?”
So… a good night at the pub last Thursday. So intense it took me a week to attempt to relive it. A nice group – some friends from in town, some friends from out of town, some other friends…
The topics, shorthand, were setup as follows: man vs. wild, soul vs. body, and interpretation vs. facts.
First topic: Like animals – we eat, sleep, defecate, and have sex. How are we different?
Interesting question. Everyone at the table finally admitted to participating in all the above activities. Wait, was I not supposed to share that?
“We are animals. Does anyone here think we’re not animals?” Steve had to know.
Silence. Crickets.
The non-animals among us refused to speak up. Guilty as charged. Apparently our initial dichotomy – ‘man vs. wild’ should be rephrased to: ‘man is wild’?
Brian noted the law recently passed in Florida which forbade sex with animals.
“Apparently it’s now illegal to have sex in Florida,” he quipped.
Clever.
Yet.
There are differences, aren’t there? You wouldn’t imagine a group of hyenas gathered around a table having existential ponderings. You don’t see chimpanzees inventing smartphones. You don’t see parakeets writing novels. So there are some differences. What are they?
Rational thought? The ability to step outside ourselves? The awareness of our own mortality? The ability to have empathy? The presence of a soul? The need to dispose of our defecation?
Well, we couldn’t let that one alone. Somehow we stumbled on the topic of privacy when it comes to going to the bathroom.
Courtesy flush?
“I can’t stand it when stalls don’t have doors.”
“Don’t you hate it when that guy just has to keep talking to you at the urinal? You know that guy.”
“One time, I was in a stall in a large bathroom near the beach, and I just started making loud painful groaning sounds. It was hilarious.”
Wait, what?
Speaking of, what do you make of the following:
“[T]he immediate appearance of the Inner is formless $h*t. The small child who gives his sh-t as a present is in a way giving the immediate equivalent of his Inner Self. Freud’s well-known identification of excrement as the primordial form of gift, of an innermost object that the small child gives to its parents, is thus not as naive as it may appear: the often-overlooked point is that this piece of myself offered to the Other radically oscillates between the Sublime and – not the Ridiculous, but, precisely – the excremental. This is the reason why, for Lacan, one of the features which distinguishes man from animals is that, with humans, the disposal of sh-t becomes a problem: not because it has a bad smell, but because it came out from our innermost selves. We are ashamed of sh-t because, in it, we expose/externalize our innermost intimacy. Animals do not have a problem with it because they do not have an “interior” like humans.”
Leave to Zizek to get all psychoanalytic about poop.
Yet perhaps he’s on to something.
In any case, isn’t there a Game 7 tonight? Spoiler: the Wings came up just short. Oh that’s right, that was a week ago.
We did spend some time on the idea of the soul. Is that a differentiating factor? Do all dogs go to heaven?
We started talking about the idea of the Christian hope in a new heavens and a new earth. I wondered, “So, what about dogs? I mean, I assume on the new earth there will be animals. Will they be the ‘same’ animals? I mean, will my dog Oscar that we had when I was a kid be there? Or will there just be some ‘stock’ golden labs who are like Oscar but aren’t actually Oscar?”
Compelling question. Unfortunately no one had a definitive answer.
“Much of the afterlife is simply speculation,” noted Kristen (not to be confused with Kirsten).
Agreed.
Somehow we stumbled on to the idea of biblical inspiration, and how to deal with some of the difficult texts in the Old Testament.
“When the Bible has God say, ‘Kill every man, woman, and child,’ is that really God saying that, or just the people saying God said that? Maybe they just slaughtered a group of people, and now they are attributing their actions to God’s commands to them, which sort of takes the responsibility off of them for what they’ve just done. History is written by the winners, so perhaps they’re just putting their spin on it. Or God did actually say it, and if so, what does that mean about God?”
“Well, maybe it’s neither of those – maybe it’s something else. History is often written by the winners – but the Bible seems an exception. Israel was not a great nation or empire, even at its peak, compared to Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, and so on. Perhaps God is telling them these things, but he has a reason for it, and it’s reflective of the time, the culture, and how things worked then. If God was easy to explain, would he still be God?”
“Wait, is this the topic?”
“Who cares – this stuff is interesting!”
Indeed.
So we decided that we are all animals, but animals who care, and that makes us special. We also decided that some things, like difficult texts in the Bible, are a bit of a mystery, and we can have some flexibility in our understanding of them, and should allow our ideas of inspiration to have room for different readings and approaches to the text. Actually there were no group decisions.
A must read?
But on the note about challenging texts in the Bible, I came across a book recently that I’m intrigued by: The Human Faces of God: What Scripture Reveals When It Gets God Wrong (and Why Inerrancy Tries to Hide It). It’s written by Thom Stark and published by Wipf and Stock. (Hey – sounds like they publish quality books…)
Here are a few endorsements:
I learned so much from this book that I can strongly encourage anyone who is seeking to move from simplistic proof-texting to a comprehensive understanding of the Bible to read this book carefully.
–Tony Campolo
author of Red Letter Christians
Christians can ignore the facts that Stark brings into the light of day only if they want to be wrong.
–Dale C. Allison, Jr.
author of Constructing Jesus
This is must reading for Christians who have agonized over their own private doubts about Scripture and for others who have given up hope that evangelical Christians can practice intelligent, moral interpretation of the Bible.
–Neil Elliott
author of Liberating Paul
[W]ith the help of this book, we may discover that the Bible when we read it in all its diversity and vulnerability does bring healing words to those who keep listening.
–Ted Grimsrud
author of Embodying the Way of Jesus
Stark’s book effectively demonstrates how the Bible, in practice, is the most dangerous enemy of fundamentalists.
–James F. McGrath
author of The Only True God
The Human Faces of God is one of the most challenging and well-argued cases against the doctrine of biblical inerrancy I have ever read.
–Greg A. Boyd
author of The Myth of a Christian Nation
Stark provides a model for theology that is committed to hearing the voice of the victims of history, especially the victims of our own religious traditions.
–Michael J. Iafrate
PhD Candidate, Toronto School of Theology
This book is the most powerful antidote to fundamentalism that I’ve ever read.
–Frank Schaeffer
author of Crazy for God
Wow. Maybe I’ll read it. I downloaded the first chapter free on my Kindle. I’ll check it out and let you know if it’s as good as everyone says.
Here’s a summary:
Does accepting the doctrine of biblical inspiration necessitate belief in biblical inerrancy? The Bible has always functioned authoritatively in the life of the church, but what exactly should that mean? Must it mean the Bible is without error in all historical details and ethical teachings? What should thoughtful Christians do with texts that propose God is pleased by human sacrifice or that God commanded Israel to commit acts of genocide? What about texts that contain historical errors or predictions that have gone unfulfilled long beyond their expiration dates?
In The Human Faces of God, Thom Stark moves beyond notions of inerrancy in order to confront such problematic texts and open up a conversation about new ways they can be used in service of the church and its moral witness today. Readers looking for an academically informed yet accessible discussion of the Bible’s thorniest texts will find a thought-provoking and indispensable resource in The Human Faces of God.
From a reader on Amazon.com:
This is the book I have been waiting for my whole adult life. Like Stark, I was raised to understand the Bible as the inerrant word of God, “dropped from heaven”. I have been a Christian my whole life, yet I have increasing become uncomfortable with some of the difficult texts in the Bible and their implications on my faith and personal understanding of God as revealed in Jesus Christ. This has been compounded by the fact that I now have young children and am reading the Bible with them, struggling with how to present stories such as the Passover, wishing I could somehow skip over them. Stark addresses the difficult issues with precision, intellect, and devotion, never turning his back on Christianity. For me, the chains are off. Ironically, I can now read the Bible with more commitment. I don’t wish to skip over the difficult texts, I can address them again. My faith has been rekindled. Thank you, Thom Stark.
Good stuff! I think I’m getting a copy for Half the Sky, the Watershed Community Library. But I’m not here to sell books… (at least not yet.) 🙂
TRAVERSE CITY – A high-energy night at the pub, highlighted by good conversation about the death of Osama bin Laden, an excellent selection of beers, and monkeys on the loose – all covered extensively by the paparazzi, who got wind of our topic. Also, the world is ending in 2036.
The evening began with a send off for Rebecca, who left early to catch a flight to Madrid. A week after recovering from her big thirtieth birthday party, she was ready to leave the country. So she bid us all sayonara, lugging her suitcase from the Warehouse district all the way to S. Airport Road.
After recently being blacklisted by the Record-Eagle, we were pleasantly surprised to find they still like us, and we welcomed in Jan-Michael Stump, photographer extraordinaire, who captured the highlight of the evening as first-time guest Sharon Moller explained to her husband Pete and the rest of us her own response to the news of bin Laden’s death. She echoed sentiments carried by many of us, that she was relieved in a way, but a bit troubled by the gratuitous celebrations carried out in the immediate aftermath.
A captive audience
Steve noted that he *would* celebrate if his death meant we could finally wrap up our ‘war on terror’, and realize that having a war against terror is a bit of a ridiculous concept. There was agreement around the table that that would indeed be a good thing.
Others fear that the killing of bin Laden would create more reprisals and backlash than it would actually accomplish any sort of diminishing of terrorism. Does fighting violence with violence really work? The Dalai Lama noted his own sadness at the event, though he said he understood why it happened. He wondered whether killing one man would bring more peace, or just new opportunities for more to step in and fill the void.
It was also asked whether or not this would turn bin Laden into some sort of martyr. Would he now become even more of a hero in death than he was in life for those who followed him?
What meteor?
The second major topic of the night was this: If the human race is wiped out, what will be the reason?
Keith D. felt it would be some sort of pandemic – a medical/disease scenario like a virus of some sort that would wipe us all out. Some felt it would be self-inflicted, such as a nuclear reality, or a longer-term environmental disaster making the planet unsustainable for human life. Brian with an ‘i’ was back and he felt it would be something like a comet or asteroid that would cause a dinosaur-like extinction, and that in fact there may be one already on its way. This caused us all to get another round. I couldn’t find anything on the one Brian mentioned – Xerxes, but did find a story on one named Apophis after the Egyptian god of death and destruction (how comforting!).
Here’s what I found: “There is a large asteroid, made entirely of iron, currently speeding toward earth. Discovered in 2004, it’s called “Apophis,” after the Greek-Egyptian god of death and destruction. And the asteroid named after a god of death will be the largest and closest thing to come near Earth than any other object in recorded history. It will come so close, in fact, that it will actually be closer to the ground than orbiting communications satellites. It will be seeable with the naked eye as a point of intense light burning across the sky.
When will it pass near Earth? April 13, 2029. A Friday.
But that’s not even the scariest part.
Scientists are nearly certain that the asteroid won’t hit when it swings by in 2029. But there’s a possibility that, if Earth’s gravity affects the asteroid’s path enough, it will swing back around the Sun and strike the Earth on April 13, 2036.
So, if Apophis does hit Earth in 2036, where, exactly, will it hit?”
Good question – you’ll have to link to the article to read the rest, though it did note that an impact could ‘start a massive fire that would burn millions of acres, spilling tons of ash and debris into the air and plunging the Northern Hemisphere into darkness’. Also comforting.
monkey see...
The final topic of the night was a doozy – ‘Can God make a breakfast so big he can’t eat it?’ No one jumped on it, so we left the pub with visions of extra large omelets, king-size pancakes, and, to quote Obi Wan, feeling “a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror, and were suddenly silenced.”
It was a light but enjoyable evening of Pub Theology last night. The art, on the other hand, was once again ominous and imposing.
The hyped-up “Duel of the Deities”, or whose God was ‘bigger and better’, was instantly over when I pulled out my article. Who could argue with a headline like that? 🙂
We began discussing breakast. What we had that morning, and what an ideal breakfast would be. Actual breakfasts ranged from oatmeal, to a scone, to yogurt. Ideal breakfasts included vegetable-heavy omelettes, bacon, homemade pancakes, French toast, and my fav – a Turkish breakfast comprised of cucumbers, tomatoes, feta cheese, olives, a boiled egg, yogurt, and toast.
The Presbyterian-heavy crowd had some thoughts on the second topic: are human beings sinful by nature?
I certainly grew up hearing again and again that I was ‘totally depraved’. That was hammered in pretty well. Sinful, broken, and separated from God, and barely tolerated by him. We connect this to original sin – the initial sin by the first human pair. Yet how do we balance this with God’s initial, earliest declaration of humanity as good? (Even very good!). One participant noted Matthew Fox’s book (no, not Jack from LOST) called “Original Blessing” which attempts to swing the pendulum this other direction, toward humanity as goodness. I haven’t read the book, but the idea makes sense to me. Our original status, you might even say, root status is that of being good, of being made in the image of God. If that were not the case, why would, according to the Christian story, God become incarnate as one of us? Why would he bother with us at all?
All of us agreed that we are broken, sinful, and all that, but that perhaps we ought to balance the story, and remember that we are, in the end, God’s good creation, indelibly stamped with his mark, and that God in Jesus is now a fellow embodied person. (Normally we would have a contingent who would have preferred different language than ‘sinful’ such as evolutionary tendencies, or biological imperatives, for example – in other words, interpreting harmful actions materially rather than theologically).
In the midst of conversation, we were able to sample some homebrew (under the table), including the incredible “Last Rites”, an imperial IPA. There was also some Scotch Ale of the sour variety (no comment). This balanced out the Raisin-Ade I had from the cask (very flavorful), and the Bitchin’ Brown, a very nice brown ale.
We pondered momentarily whether or not there is an ‘age of accountability’, an age at which one is responsible for one’s moral actions, or responsible for turning to God or not. In other words, does it make sense to say that a five-year-old who dies could be in hell? What about a twelve-year-old?
Conversation late in the evening turned to my unfortunate article headline in the newspaper. A couple who hadn’t read the paper or the article had the initial response: “Wow, that’s defamation of character. You should totally let them know how you were misrepresented.” Alas…
The next evening the man again orders and drinks three beers at a time, several times. Soon the entire town is whispering about the Man Who Orders Three Beers.
