Lee Harmon's Blog, page 81
September 29, 2012
Book review: God Is Red
by Liao Yiwu
★★★★★
Wow! Powerful stuff, here.
Liao is not a Christian, he’s a Chinese rebel. That is, he’s a critic of the Chinese regime, for which he has been imprisoned and his works have been banned. Says Liao, “I will continue to write and document the sufferings of people living at the bottom rung of society, even though the Communist Party is not pleased with my writing. I have the responsibility to help the world understand the true spirit of China, which will outlast the current totalitarian government.”
So, in this book, he takes on the topic of how Christianity flourished under the Communist banner. Martyrdom, underground house churches, religious persecutions … these are the sorts of topics you’ll find in this series of 18 essays. Many deal with the period of Chairman Mao and the Cultural Revolution.
This is not really a political book, nor is it evangelical. It is a reporters-eye view of Christianity where it doesn’t fit in. In learning about his topic, Liao attends a Eucharist celebration, interviews church leaders, visits the sites of persecution, and lets real people tell their stories. Warning: These stories are as disturbing as they are inspiring. Christianity under Red China looks like the first couple centuries under the Roman Empire all over again.
Was it worth it for those who endured? I’ll let you decide after you read the final interview with its entirely different flavor, of a new young 2010 convert to Christianity. A dry surprise awaits you.
[image error]
★★★★★
Wow! Powerful stuff, here.
Liao is not a Christian, he’s a Chinese rebel. That is, he’s a critic of the Chinese regime, for which he has been imprisoned and his works have been banned. Says Liao, “I will continue to write and document the sufferings of people living at the bottom rung of society, even though the Communist Party is not pleased with my writing. I have the responsibility to help the world understand the true spirit of China, which will outlast the current totalitarian government.”
So, in this book, he takes on the topic of how Christianity flourished under the Communist banner. Martyrdom, underground house churches, religious persecutions … these are the sorts of topics you’ll find in this series of 18 essays. Many deal with the period of Chairman Mao and the Cultural Revolution.
This is not really a political book, nor is it evangelical. It is a reporters-eye view of Christianity where it doesn’t fit in. In learning about his topic, Liao attends a Eucharist celebration, interviews church leaders, visits the sites of persecution, and lets real people tell their stories. Warning: These stories are as disturbing as they are inspiring. Christianity under Red China looks like the first couple centuries under the Roman Empire all over again.
Was it worth it for those who endured? I’ll let you decide after you read the final interview with its entirely different flavor, of a new young 2010 convert to Christianity. A dry surprise awaits you.
[image error]
September 28, 2012
Mark 2:26, Mark Names the Wrong High Priest
How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?
I often find myself discussing apparent contradictions in the Bible with others who see no contradiction at all. I have one friend who simply buries his head and says he has “faith” that there are no contradictions, and I have another friend who thoroughly enjoys working through apparent contradictions as if they are puzzles put there to be solved. In truth, I’m against neither approach, believing that religion should be whatever works best for us, yet both approaches do puzzle me. Both seem to begin with the assumption that the Bible, in order to be the Word of God, must be inerrant.
Let’s take today’s verse as an example. Mark’s Gospel says that Abiathar was the high priest during this incident of David eating the showbread in the Temple. Mark is even quoting Jesus with these words. But if you read the account in 1 Samuel, it isn’t Abiathar, it’s Ahimelech:
Then came David to Nob to Ahimelech the priest: and Ahimelech was afraid at the meeting of David, and said unto him, Why art thou alone, and no man with thee? –1 Samuel 21:1
It turns out that with a little wordplay, the contradiction can go away. Mark doesn’t say Ahimelech wasn’t also a high priest; maybe there were two? All Mark says is that this incident occurred during the time Abiathar was high priest. So could there have been two high priests? Technically, no, but if you read Luke 3:2, it gives the opinion that there can be multiple high priests at the same time. Luke was referring to Caiaphas and Ananias, the latter of which was no longer the high priest but once served in that capacity, and Luke called them both high priests. Is this a good enough explanation to solve the Abiathar/Ahimelech conundrum?
Common sense says no. There’s simply no reason at all for Mark to mention Abiathar when the priest that matters in the story is Ahimelech. But, technically, it’s possible that there is no contradiction … there are ways to twist the words around until the Bible remains inerrant.
Which is the proper approach? It boils down to what you must believe, in order to remain a Christian.
[image error]
I often find myself discussing apparent contradictions in the Bible with others who see no contradiction at all. I have one friend who simply buries his head and says he has “faith” that there are no contradictions, and I have another friend who thoroughly enjoys working through apparent contradictions as if they are puzzles put there to be solved. In truth, I’m against neither approach, believing that religion should be whatever works best for us, yet both approaches do puzzle me. Both seem to begin with the assumption that the Bible, in order to be the Word of God, must be inerrant.
Let’s take today’s verse as an example. Mark’s Gospel says that Abiathar was the high priest during this incident of David eating the showbread in the Temple. Mark is even quoting Jesus with these words. But if you read the account in 1 Samuel, it isn’t Abiathar, it’s Ahimelech:
Then came David to Nob to Ahimelech the priest: and Ahimelech was afraid at the meeting of David, and said unto him, Why art thou alone, and no man with thee? –1 Samuel 21:1
It turns out that with a little wordplay, the contradiction can go away. Mark doesn’t say Ahimelech wasn’t also a high priest; maybe there were two? All Mark says is that this incident occurred during the time Abiathar was high priest. So could there have been two high priests? Technically, no, but if you read Luke 3:2, it gives the opinion that there can be multiple high priests at the same time. Luke was referring to Caiaphas and Ananias, the latter of which was no longer the high priest but once served in that capacity, and Luke called them both high priests. Is this a good enough explanation to solve the Abiathar/Ahimelech conundrum?
Common sense says no. There’s simply no reason at all for Mark to mention Abiathar when the priest that matters in the story is Ahimelech. But, technically, it’s possible that there is no contradiction … there are ways to twist the words around until the Bible remains inerrant.
Which is the proper approach? It boils down to what you must believe, in order to remain a Christian.
[image error]
September 27, 2012
1 John 4:16, God is Love
God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.
//Here is a verse dear to all strands of Christianity. Regardless of how you imagine God to be love, Christians agree that He is love.
It turns out that this manner of picturing God is common to many religions. The following quotes are taken from J. C. Tefft's new book, The Christ is Not a Person:
Buddhism: He that loveth not, knoweth not God. For God is love.
Confucius: Love belongs to the highest Heaven and is the quiet home where man should dwell.
Hinduism: The entire universe is in the glory of God ... the God of love.
Jewish: Love is the beginning and the end of the Torah.
Sufism: For God is the God of Love, and Love calls from all these, each one His home.
[image error]
//Here is a verse dear to all strands of Christianity. Regardless of how you imagine God to be love, Christians agree that He is love.
It turns out that this manner of picturing God is common to many religions. The following quotes are taken from J. C. Tefft's new book, The Christ is Not a Person:
Buddhism: He that loveth not, knoweth not God. For God is love.
Confucius: Love belongs to the highest Heaven and is the quiet home where man should dwell.
Hinduism: The entire universe is in the glory of God ... the God of love.
Jewish: Love is the beginning and the end of the Torah.
Sufism: For God is the God of Love, and Love calls from all these, each one His home.
[image error]
September 26, 2012
Revelation 6:1, The White Horseman of Revelation
I looked, and there before me was a white horse! Its rider held a bow, and he was given a crown, and he rode out as a conqueror bent on conquest.
//This is a topic that comes up often in discussion, so I'm repeating most of a blog post from early in 2011. Did John of Patmos have a particular person in mind when he wrote of the white horseman?
This horseman speaks of a warrior "bent on conquest." Because of the color of the horse, many interpreters imagine the horseman to be Jesus himself. Jesus arrives later in Revelation riding a white steed. But Jesus just doesn't jibe with the atmosphere of the other three horsemen. These horsemen appear like four faces of evil.
In this light, many have wondered if the white horseman intentionally mimics Christ. Could he be the Antichrist? No, that doesn't quite fit either. You may be surprised to learn that Revelation never once mentions an antichrist; only a "Beast of the Sea," which later became associated with the Antichrist, or the Son of Perdition. But the white horseman seems in no way related to the Beast.
Who, then? In light of Revelation's description of the war of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., one name stands out above all others: Vespasian, the Roman general who stormed through Galilee and Judea terrorizing villages as he approached Jerusalem. The Jewish historian Josephus proclaimed Vespasian the Messiah, so John of Patmos seats him on a white horse, mimicking Christ, the true Messiah. Vespasian also imitated Christ as a healer: he healed a blind man with spittle, a lame man, and man with a withered hand. These events would have occurred around the year 69 or 70, about the time Mark penned his Gospel describing how Jesus performed exactly the same miracles.
John tells how this white horseman was given a crown, and how he rode out as a conqueror. David Aune, author of three scholarly tomes on Revelation, suggests that a more accurate interpretation of today's verse may be "the conquering one left to conquer even more." As history buffs already know, Vespasian did just that. Bolstered by Josephus' vision of him as Messiah, Vespasian broke off the attack on Jerusalem (handing it over to his son, Titus) and returned to Rome, to claim by force an even greater place. He was crowned king over the entire Empire.
More about Vespasian’s role in Revelation can be found in my book, http://www.thewayithappened.com
[image error]
//This is a topic that comes up often in discussion, so I'm repeating most of a blog post from early in 2011. Did John of Patmos have a particular person in mind when he wrote of the white horseman?
This horseman speaks of a warrior "bent on conquest." Because of the color of the horse, many interpreters imagine the horseman to be Jesus himself. Jesus arrives later in Revelation riding a white steed. But Jesus just doesn't jibe with the atmosphere of the other three horsemen. These horsemen appear like four faces of evil.
In this light, many have wondered if the white horseman intentionally mimics Christ. Could he be the Antichrist? No, that doesn't quite fit either. You may be surprised to learn that Revelation never once mentions an antichrist; only a "Beast of the Sea," which later became associated with the Antichrist, or the Son of Perdition. But the white horseman seems in no way related to the Beast.
Who, then? In light of Revelation's description of the war of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., one name stands out above all others: Vespasian, the Roman general who stormed through Galilee and Judea terrorizing villages as he approached Jerusalem. The Jewish historian Josephus proclaimed Vespasian the Messiah, so John of Patmos seats him on a white horse, mimicking Christ, the true Messiah. Vespasian also imitated Christ as a healer: he healed a blind man with spittle, a lame man, and man with a withered hand. These events would have occurred around the year 69 or 70, about the time Mark penned his Gospel describing how Jesus performed exactly the same miracles.
John tells how this white horseman was given a crown, and how he rode out as a conqueror. David Aune, author of three scholarly tomes on Revelation, suggests that a more accurate interpretation of today's verse may be "the conquering one left to conquer even more." As history buffs already know, Vespasian did just that. Bolstered by Josephus' vision of him as Messiah, Vespasian broke off the attack on Jerusalem (handing it over to his son, Titus) and returned to Rome, to claim by force an even greater place. He was crowned king over the entire Empire.
More about Vespasian’s role in Revelation can be found in my book, http://www.thewayithappened.com
[image error]
September 25, 2012
Book review: Becoming, A Spiritual Journey
by Rev. Dr. Pamela Feeser
★★★★
I struggled in deciding on a rating for this one. For myself, I’d give it three stars; I just didn’t relate well. It’s a short little book, and even at that, it seems to lose a bit of focus toward the end and perhaps could have been even shorter. But for others, who have shared more of the pain that Pamela has (both physical and emotional), the book will prove inspirational and comforting, worthy of a five-star ranking. I settled on a compromise of four stars.
Rev. Feeser is opinionated but gentle as she shares the wisdom of a life still Becoming. This is a book for the heart, not so much for the head … a bit different from the sort of book I usually review. Yet it was a pleasant break, sometimes even delightful … and sometimes disturbing. Like Job in the Bible, Pamela endured a lot under God’s watchful eye. Like Job, she simply could never give up on Him. While her understanding and picture of God evolved over time, her love for the One Who Loved Her Into Being grew only stronger … overcoming periods of darkness which found her railing in anger at Him. In her love-hate relationship with the Creator, love won by a landslide, and this shared love is clearly her comfort and strength today.
“Bottom line, God, it’s you and me. I know we can do it.”
Spiritual living is characterized by creative chaos, insists Rev. Feeser. Yet within that chaos, her escape was music and poetic verse. Music appears to have grounded her, given her stability in a world of chaos. Over and over she found God hiding in the notes and the controlled breathing of playing wind instruments (Spirit = breath of God). I mention this because for all the writing I do about God, I know so very little about Him, and I think that for one person at least … God is music. I’m glad Pamela found Him there; we should all be so lucky.
[image error]
★★★★
I struggled in deciding on a rating for this one. For myself, I’d give it three stars; I just didn’t relate well. It’s a short little book, and even at that, it seems to lose a bit of focus toward the end and perhaps could have been even shorter. But for others, who have shared more of the pain that Pamela has (both physical and emotional), the book will prove inspirational and comforting, worthy of a five-star ranking. I settled on a compromise of four stars.
Rev. Feeser is opinionated but gentle as she shares the wisdom of a life still Becoming. This is a book for the heart, not so much for the head … a bit different from the sort of book I usually review. Yet it was a pleasant break, sometimes even delightful … and sometimes disturbing. Like Job in the Bible, Pamela endured a lot under God’s watchful eye. Like Job, she simply could never give up on Him. While her understanding and picture of God evolved over time, her love for the One Who Loved Her Into Being grew only stronger … overcoming periods of darkness which found her railing in anger at Him. In her love-hate relationship with the Creator, love won by a landslide, and this shared love is clearly her comfort and strength today.
“Bottom line, God, it’s you and me. I know we can do it.”
Spiritual living is characterized by creative chaos, insists Rev. Feeser. Yet within that chaos, her escape was music and poetic verse. Music appears to have grounded her, given her stability in a world of chaos. Over and over she found God hiding in the notes and the controlled breathing of playing wind instruments (Spirit = breath of God). I mention this because for all the writing I do about God, I know so very little about Him, and I think that for one person at least … God is music. I’m glad Pamela found Him there; we should all be so lucky.
[image error]
September 24, 2012
Psalm 139:8-10, Personifying God
If I ascend into heaven, You are there; If I make my bed in hell, behold, You are there. If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, even there Your hand shall lead me, And Your right hand shall hold me.
//Yesterday, I asked if it was acceptable to interpret God walking in the Garden of Eden in a non-literal way. God doesn't really have feet, does he?
Today's verse makes it clear that at least some Bible writers understood the usefulness of personification. Very early on, God was recognized as being omni-present, a part of the reality all around and within us. If we make our bed in hell, God is down there with us, unlimited by space. As Paul explains, we live in God, God lives in us, a reality that is all-encompassing, if a bit panentheistic.
Then we come to the end of today's verses and read that God's hand will lead and hold us. Personification and omnipresence curiously intermingle in a manner that makes it clear the psalmist is speaking figuratively. God's hand is everywhere at once. While a personal God is most effectively expressed through personification, we all recognize this as a literary device.
Now let's go back to Adam and Even in the garden. If God doesn't really have feet and hands, what does it mean to be made in the image of God?
[image error]
//Yesterday, I asked if it was acceptable to interpret God walking in the Garden of Eden in a non-literal way. God doesn't really have feet, does he?
Today's verse makes it clear that at least some Bible writers understood the usefulness of personification. Very early on, God was recognized as being omni-present, a part of the reality all around and within us. If we make our bed in hell, God is down there with us, unlimited by space. As Paul explains, we live in God, God lives in us, a reality that is all-encompassing, if a bit panentheistic.
Then we come to the end of today's verses and read that God's hand will lead and hold us. Personification and omnipresence curiously intermingle in a manner that makes it clear the psalmist is speaking figuratively. God's hand is everywhere at once. While a personal God is most effectively expressed through personification, we all recognize this as a literary device.
Now let's go back to Adam and Even in the garden. If God doesn't really have feet and hands, what does it mean to be made in the image of God?
[image error]
September 23, 2012
Genesis 3:8, God Walks in the Garden
And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden.
//Many times I've mentioned, always a bit tongue-in-cheek, that I miss the God who used to play hide-and-seek with his humans in his garden. But what do you really picture as you read this verse? Although I've never polled anyone, I suspect every Christian has a little different image in their head when they think of "the sound of God walking."
Martin Luther, for example, thought it ridiculous to imagine that God actually walked around on feet. Something else must be meant. Adam and Eve heard the sound of wind and animals, which before had seemed benign, but now, because of their fallen state, had become something to be afraid of.
Has Luther gone too far in de-personifying God? Are we still taking the Bible seriously when we don't take it literally? More on this topic tomorrow.
[image error]
//Many times I've mentioned, always a bit tongue-in-cheek, that I miss the God who used to play hide-and-seek with his humans in his garden. But what do you really picture as you read this verse? Although I've never polled anyone, I suspect every Christian has a little different image in their head when they think of "the sound of God walking."
Martin Luther, for example, thought it ridiculous to imagine that God actually walked around on feet. Something else must be meant. Adam and Eve heard the sound of wind and animals, which before had seemed benign, but now, because of their fallen state, had become something to be afraid of.
Has Luther gone too far in de-personifying God? Are we still taking the Bible seriously when we don't take it literally? More on this topic tomorrow.
[image error]
September 22, 2012
Book review: Why Did Jesus, Moses, the Buddha, and Mohammed Cross the Road?
by Brian D. McLaren
★★★★★
We have just enough religion to make us hate but not enough to make us love one another. --Jonathan Swift
What does it mean to be a Christian in a multi-faith world? In a world that keeps shrinking, McLaren draws us back to Christian neighborly principles, encouraging respect and interfaith understanding, but without sacrificing our allegiance to Christ. While it may be true that fostering an us-versus-them atmosphere strengthens the walls and adds purpose to our lives, this does not mean it's the only (or proper) way to remain strong in our faith. McLaren teaches a Christian identity that moves us toward people of other faiths in wholehearted love, not in spite of their non-Christianity identity and not in spite of our own Christianity identity, but because of our identity as a follower of God in the way of Jesus.
Anne Rice once proclaimed, "In the name of Christ ... I quit Christianity and being Christian." Many of us have felt the same frustration as we outgrew our oppositional tendencies and pondered what it really means to be Christian. McLaren calls it "Conflicted Religious Identity Syndrome," this matter of opposing opposition, for it is opposition—standing not only for something but against something—which stabilizes our identity.
But if we jettison our strong/hostile Christian training, will we drift toward its opposite, a weak/benign faith? Yes, if we don't direct our efforts! Weak faith is weak faith! So McLaren calls for strong/benevolent Christians. Contrary to the arguments of aggressive atheists today, the antidote to bad religion is not no religion, but good religion.
As I read back over my review, I see that I’ve used too many big words; I haven’t been very true to the flavor of the book. It actually is quite readable and satisfying, and I loved it.[image error]
★★★★★
We have just enough religion to make us hate but not enough to make us love one another. --Jonathan Swift
What does it mean to be a Christian in a multi-faith world? In a world that keeps shrinking, McLaren draws us back to Christian neighborly principles, encouraging respect and interfaith understanding, but without sacrificing our allegiance to Christ. While it may be true that fostering an us-versus-them atmosphere strengthens the walls and adds purpose to our lives, this does not mean it's the only (or proper) way to remain strong in our faith. McLaren teaches a Christian identity that moves us toward people of other faiths in wholehearted love, not in spite of their non-Christianity identity and not in spite of our own Christianity identity, but because of our identity as a follower of God in the way of Jesus.
Anne Rice once proclaimed, "In the name of Christ ... I quit Christianity and being Christian." Many of us have felt the same frustration as we outgrew our oppositional tendencies and pondered what it really means to be Christian. McLaren calls it "Conflicted Religious Identity Syndrome," this matter of opposing opposition, for it is opposition—standing not only for something but against something—which stabilizes our identity.
But if we jettison our strong/hostile Christian training, will we drift toward its opposite, a weak/benign faith? Yes, if we don't direct our efforts! Weak faith is weak faith! So McLaren calls for strong/benevolent Christians. Contrary to the arguments of aggressive atheists today, the antidote to bad religion is not no religion, but good religion.
As I read back over my review, I see that I’ve used too many big words; I haven’t been very true to the flavor of the book. It actually is quite readable and satisfying, and I loved it.[image error]
September 21, 2012
Exodus 28:30, Urim and Thummim
Also put the Urim and the Thummim in the breastpiece, so they may be over Aaron's heart whenever he enters the presence of the LORD. Thus Aaron will always bear the means of making decisions for the Israelites over his heart before the LORD.
//Urim and Thummim were objects used as an ancient Israelite means of divination. Ever wonder what these objects looked like? We have no idea. They trace back to at least the 8th century BC, referenced in the book of Hosea. Their use seems to have disappeared prior to Babylonian captivity. The Talmud explains that they were lost when Jerusalem was sacked by Babylon.
1 Samuel chapter 14 finds God giving Saul the silent treatment, and Saul finally decides God must be miffed about a sin committed by Israel. He gathers the leaders of his army and stands them together, while he and his son Jonathan stand apart. Then he inquires of God "by lot" to determine the innocent party. He and Jonathan are selected. He inquires again between he and Jonathan, and finds his son to be guilty. (Jonathan was supposed to be fasting, and snuck a taste of honey).
We assume this “casting of lots” referred again to Urim and Thummim. They appear to have been small objects belonging to the high priest, worn on the breastplate, or perhaps in a pouch or pocket inside the breastplate. Some picture them to have been tiny tablets of bone or wood. Textual scholars believe the name Thummim derives from the root word meaning innocent, while Urim derives from a root meaning cursed. Most likely, the high priest put his hand into the pocket, swirled it around a bit, and randomly chose one of the two, determining the party's innocence or guilt. To determine a sinner from a group of people, the priest could divide the crowd in two, use his U&T to determine the side with the guilty party, and repeat the process until God had singled out one person.
[image error]
//Urim and Thummim were objects used as an ancient Israelite means of divination. Ever wonder what these objects looked like? We have no idea. They trace back to at least the 8th century BC, referenced in the book of Hosea. Their use seems to have disappeared prior to Babylonian captivity. The Talmud explains that they were lost when Jerusalem was sacked by Babylon.
1 Samuel chapter 14 finds God giving Saul the silent treatment, and Saul finally decides God must be miffed about a sin committed by Israel. He gathers the leaders of his army and stands them together, while he and his son Jonathan stand apart. Then he inquires of God "by lot" to determine the innocent party. He and Jonathan are selected. He inquires again between he and Jonathan, and finds his son to be guilty. (Jonathan was supposed to be fasting, and snuck a taste of honey).
We assume this “casting of lots” referred again to Urim and Thummim. They appear to have been small objects belonging to the high priest, worn on the breastplate, or perhaps in a pouch or pocket inside the breastplate. Some picture them to have been tiny tablets of bone or wood. Textual scholars believe the name Thummim derives from the root word meaning innocent, while Urim derives from a root meaning cursed. Most likely, the high priest put his hand into the pocket, swirled it around a bit, and randomly chose one of the two, determining the party's innocence or guilt. To determine a sinner from a group of people, the priest could divide the crowd in two, use his U&T to determine the side with the guilty party, and repeat the process until God had singled out one person.
[image error]
September 20, 2012
Proverbs 31:6-7, Beer for the Poor
Give beer to those who are perishing, wine to those who are in anguish; let them drink and forget their poverty and remember their misery no more.
//I saw a beggar in Las Vegas a while back holding an open hat and a sign that read, "Why lie? I need a beer." Honesty intrigues me, so I stopped and asked him if he was perishing. He said yep, if he didn't get a beer he'd die, and I said alrighty, you qualify. I'll see what I can do.
As I entered the casino I was met by drunken laughter. Someone at the 3-card poker table had hit it big, and was dancing around with three kings in his hand.
It is not for kings, O Lemuel—not for kings to drink wine, not for rulers to crave beer, lest they drink and forget what the law decrees, and deprive all the oppressed of their rights. –verses 4-5
... so I stole his beer while he was celebrating and took it out to the beggar where it belongs.
(editor’s note: This doesn’t quite sound like Lee … I suspect this didn’t really happen!)
[image error]
//I saw a beggar in Las Vegas a while back holding an open hat and a sign that read, "Why lie? I need a beer." Honesty intrigues me, so I stopped and asked him if he was perishing. He said yep, if he didn't get a beer he'd die, and I said alrighty, you qualify. I'll see what I can do.
As I entered the casino I was met by drunken laughter. Someone at the 3-card poker table had hit it big, and was dancing around with three kings in his hand.
It is not for kings, O Lemuel—not for kings to drink wine, not for rulers to crave beer, lest they drink and forget what the law decrees, and deprive all the oppressed of their rights. –verses 4-5
... so I stole his beer while he was celebrating and took it out to the beggar where it belongs.
(editor’s note: This doesn’t quite sound like Lee … I suspect this didn’t really happen!)
[image error]
