Just a fun post I thought up over the weekend:
Theologian: our primary concern is not merely the candy itself, but the methodology by which we prioritize our candies.
OT scholar: The individual candy sources are not as important as how the candy editor has arranged them before us.
NT scholar: we must pay careful attention to the socio-rhetorical meaning of each ingredient before drawing conclusions merely from the taste of the candy.
Historian: many people know the stories of how Reese, Mars, and Hershey rose to power in the 1920s, but they fail to account for the significance of candy wrappers in the 1970s.
Homiletics prof: the illocutionary force of the interaction depends upon where one places the emphasis: *trick* or treat. trick or *treat*! trick *or* treat?
Sociologist: costumes are certainly significant, but they often change, while the distinct social structure and behavior patterns of each candy-seeking group remain remarkably stable.
Counselor: remember we are body and soul, and the urges we feel are often interwoven in complex ways. But, look, candy is just good. Except candy corn. That’s in the DSM.
Missiologist: before we approach any house, we must understand it in the context of the street culture, its neighborhood, its city, and the mission of God to the world!
First semester student: I’m totally overwhelmed and overjoyed by all the new flavors and textures I’m experiencing. I can’t get ENOUGH CANDY!!!!!!
Last semester student: I’m so sick of candy. I need to totally detox before I can go on.
Alum who is now a deep social media guru: the richness of God’s flavor is so often found in the gooey places between the process of candymaking and candygetting.
Image Credit: Ylanite Koppens