What are you giving up for Lent? Anything? Decided to forgo the Lenten “fast” this year?
I don’t blame you.
Last year I simply didn’t have the imagination to give anything up. I couldn’t be bothered. Nothing “felt” right. Plus, it all seemed so contrived. How does giving up (say) chocolate for a few weeks help us to identify with Christ’s suffering? Doesn’t that, somehow, belittle what Jesus went through?
This year, though, I know what I’m giving up: everything that is making me unhealthy. I can’t help but notice this expansive epigastrium expatiating my belt buckle. I went from a size 32 waist to a 36 during the 2+ years I’ve been here in Lethbridge. My young supple body is now a blob of unsightly flab. I guess I’ll have to give up my dream of being an underwear model.
Ugh.
My clothes don’t fit properly, and I’m darn sure not going to buy new ones.
Vanity, the preacher says, all is vanity.
He’s right. I am vain. I like to look good. I don’t like spare tire parked in my bay window.
But perhaps more to the point, how can I be overweight when so many children are starving to death? How can I proclaim a gospel of life and salvation while being so trapped by the world’s destructive pleasures? How can I live to preach at my grandchildrens’ ordinations if I keep choking back chicken wings and sloshing back beer?
I don’t want to wake up at 50 dead of a heart attack (yeah, you read that correctly).
St. Paul says that the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit. If that’s true, shouldn’t I keep God’s temple in at least as good a shape as I do my kitchen or living room (don’t ask about my office)?
So my Lenten fast is prompted by a hodge-podge of competing motivations. Just like everything else in life.
It looks like I’m going to be reacquainted with my good friends called vegetables, and clean the clothes off of the treadmill in my basement.
But not tonight. Tonight is about pancakes and grease rods, er, I mean sausages. Yum.
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
Saturday, February 25, 2006
Goin' veggie
It turns out my four year old daughter has a deep social conscience. This afternoon, she learned that the turkey basting in our oven came from an animal that died just because we wanted it on our table.
She was appalled. And she felt sad for the turkey.
So, our family is going veggie. At least for the time being. My daughter doesn’t want to hurt any more animals. Even by proxy.
There are worse reasons to change our diet.
She was appalled. And she felt sad for the turkey.
So, our family is going veggie. At least for the time being. My daughter doesn’t want to hurt any more animals. Even by proxy.
There are worse reasons to change our diet.
Thursday, February 23, 2006
Forget cartoons, this is REAL blasphemy
Preventable diseases kill 29,000 children under the age of five every day around the world, says a report released Wednesday by UNICEF Canada. (article here)
Meanwhile, churches squabble over sexuality. Shameful.
Islam IS the West
Why the "Clash of Civilizations" is the wrong way to approach the cartoon controversy. (whole article here. via The Revealer)
A worthy read. I know that is the way I've framed this issue.
A worthy read. I know that is the way I've framed this issue.
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Minister Buys Lap Dances To Tell Strippers About Jesus
Moral Climate Change
Terry Mattingly writes about NT Wright's February 9th speech to the British House of Lords.
Here's a piece:
Whose freedom are we talking about, anyway? Notoriously, the freedom of my fist ends where the freedom of your nose begins; and similarly the freedom of my speech is curtailed by the freedom of your honour, as the laws of slander and libel have always recognised. Part of the problem of ‘freedom of speech’ is that it tends to be the media who are most in favour of it – though they themselves often cheerfully censor information that cuts against editorial policy. Freedom of speech, my Lords, is useless if it is only selectively enjoyed, and if it is not combined with appropriate responsibility. If ‘freedom of speech’ is to be rehabilitiated as a useful concept, it needs to be set within a larger context of social and cultural wisdom. We have to find a way through the postmodern morass, not in order to go back to Enlightenment modernism, but in order to go through and out the other side into the construction of a new world of civility and mature public life. For this, freedom of speech has to be reciprocal; it needs the disciplines of interaction, of patient listening and attention. And that, my Lords, is what you don’t get when new moralities are invented overnight and enforced by policemen knocking on the door to see if you’re committing a thought-crime.
via Greg.
Here's a piece:
Whose freedom are we talking about, anyway? Notoriously, the freedom of my fist ends where the freedom of your nose begins; and similarly the freedom of my speech is curtailed by the freedom of your honour, as the laws of slander and libel have always recognised. Part of the problem of ‘freedom of speech’ is that it tends to be the media who are most in favour of it – though they themselves often cheerfully censor information that cuts against editorial policy. Freedom of speech, my Lords, is useless if it is only selectively enjoyed, and if it is not combined with appropriate responsibility. If ‘freedom of speech’ is to be rehabilitiated as a useful concept, it needs to be set within a larger context of social and cultural wisdom. We have to find a way through the postmodern morass, not in order to go back to Enlightenment modernism, but in order to go through and out the other side into the construction of a new world of civility and mature public life. For this, freedom of speech has to be reciprocal; it needs the disciplines of interaction, of patient listening and attention. And that, my Lords, is what you don’t get when new moralities are invented overnight and enforced by policemen knocking on the door to see if you’re committing a thought-crime.
via Greg.
Thus Spake the Head of Marketing
A quick survey of local church signs reveals the usual:
“People Who Care”
“Where God’s People Gather”
“A Light that Shines for God”
Ever wonder if the lives of the people who are these churches bear any resemblance to their roadway signs? Because, let’s be honest; church committees meeting to design signs aren’t soul-searching—they’re marketing.
Challenging words from Real Live Preacher.
“People Who Care”
“Where God’s People Gather”
“A Light that Shines for God”
Ever wonder if the lives of the people who are these churches bear any resemblance to their roadway signs? Because, let’s be honest; church committees meeting to design signs aren’t soul-searching—they’re marketing.
Challenging words from Real Live Preacher.
Monday, February 20, 2006
Canadian Women's Hockey Team Wins Gold!
Awesome job! Missed the game but saw the highlights. Men's team should take a close look.
Thursday, February 16, 2006
An eye toward peace
I haven’t said much about the Muslim outrage over the Danish cartoon depicting the prophet Mohamed as a terrorist, because, to be honest, I’m not 100% sure I know where I stand on the issue.
On the one hand, I am a passionate advocate of freedom of speech. I am uneasy about hate crime legislation because it feels Orwellian. A hate crime is a thought crime. We punish people for what’s in their heads and hearts rather than just for what they do.
One the other hand, Kinsella makes some compelling points:
...I believe there are reasonable and proper limits on human expression.
...I believe that words and images have power. Words and images have the power to wound and hurt and, sometimes, kill.
...I believe that we are entitled, as a society, to sanction (civilly or criminally) those who use words and images to deliberately or recklessly inflict harm on others - as with laws relating to the propagation of hate, or laws prohibiting child pornography, or defamation codes, or laws designed to sanction pornography that promotes violence against women and children.
True. But, I’m no lawyer, nor am I philosopher, but how do we define those proper limits? Don’t our existing laws protect people from harassment without the need to stretch the laws to include motive?
However, are violent protests by Muslim extremists a legitimate form of political dissent when these rights get trodden on? Of course not. These protests are no more legitimate than radical right wing Christians shooting abortion doctors or radical leftists kidnapping foreign diplomats. Radical Muslims have not cornered the market on unreasoned political expressions of dissent.
I understand why Muslims are angry. Those cartoons were meant to inflame Muslim sensibilities, and they only deepen the divide between devout followers of Islam and the so-called secular west. But aren’t violent protests and killing innocent by-standers just as blasphemous as defaming the prophet Mohamed?
Were these cartoons good examples of enlightened political discourse? No. But as a Christian, I’ve been deeply offended by what I see as blasphemy offered by some, especially from my friends on the left (Colbert can be ruthless -if funny - sometimes). Jesus is an easy target that some folks to use to bash the Religious Right, but we moderate and liberal Christians get wounded along side as collateral damage.
For people of faith, I wonder if the best way to respond to attacks on what we hold sacred is to live out our faith more authentically, more lovingly, more faithfully. If Islam truly means “Peace” than maybe our Muslim sisters and brothers need to re-capture the heart of what that means, returning to their sacred texts with an eye toward peace.
For Christians, it means blessing those who curse us. It means loving those who declare us as the enemy. It seeing the world as God sees it, hurting, violent, broken, and sinful – but also as beloved, a world for which Jesus gave his life so it may find life. As followers of Jesus, does God expect any less from us?
UPDATE: Muslims praise Canadians for 'unique' response to Muhammad caricatures (article from CP)
On the one hand, I am a passionate advocate of freedom of speech. I am uneasy about hate crime legislation because it feels Orwellian. A hate crime is a thought crime. We punish people for what’s in their heads and hearts rather than just for what they do.
One the other hand, Kinsella makes some compelling points:
...I believe there are reasonable and proper limits on human expression.
...I believe that words and images have power. Words and images have the power to wound and hurt and, sometimes, kill.
...I believe that we are entitled, as a society, to sanction (civilly or criminally) those who use words and images to deliberately or recklessly inflict harm on others - as with laws relating to the propagation of hate, or laws prohibiting child pornography, or defamation codes, or laws designed to sanction pornography that promotes violence against women and children.
True. But, I’m no lawyer, nor am I philosopher, but how do we define those proper limits? Don’t our existing laws protect people from harassment without the need to stretch the laws to include motive?
However, are violent protests by Muslim extremists a legitimate form of political dissent when these rights get trodden on? Of course not. These protests are no more legitimate than radical right wing Christians shooting abortion doctors or radical leftists kidnapping foreign diplomats. Radical Muslims have not cornered the market on unreasoned political expressions of dissent.
I understand why Muslims are angry. Those cartoons were meant to inflame Muslim sensibilities, and they only deepen the divide between devout followers of Islam and the so-called secular west. But aren’t violent protests and killing innocent by-standers just as blasphemous as defaming the prophet Mohamed?
Were these cartoons good examples of enlightened political discourse? No. But as a Christian, I’ve been deeply offended by what I see as blasphemy offered by some, especially from my friends on the left (Colbert can be ruthless -if funny - sometimes). Jesus is an easy target that some folks to use to bash the Religious Right, but we moderate and liberal Christians get wounded along side as collateral damage.
For people of faith, I wonder if the best way to respond to attacks on what we hold sacred is to live out our faith more authentically, more lovingly, more faithfully. If Islam truly means “Peace” than maybe our Muslim sisters and brothers need to re-capture the heart of what that means, returning to their sacred texts with an eye toward peace.
For Christians, it means blessing those who curse us. It means loving those who declare us as the enemy. It seeing the world as God sees it, hurting, violent, broken, and sinful – but also as beloved, a world for which Jesus gave his life so it may find life. As followers of Jesus, does God expect any less from us?
UPDATE: Muslims praise Canadians for 'unique' response to Muhammad caricatures (article from CP)
Hence cometh Winter
It’s cold today. Winter has returned, at least for the time being. But of course, this was the morning I realized my scarf was hanging on the hook in my office and not at my front door.
Brrr. But I love it.
Brrr. But I love it.
Sunday, February 12, 2006
Sermon: Epiphany 6 - Year B
Christ could not remain in majestic isolation from us. Instead, God came to us in Jesus, and shared with is what it means to be human, touched us in our uncleanness, and paid for it with his life.
Does Jesus expect anything less from his followers? To understand the world as being more than dividing the clean from the unclean? To draw out peoples’ humanity when they have been stripped of it? To treat suffering people with a dignity the world denies them? (the whole thing here)
Does Jesus expect anything less from his followers? To understand the world as being more than dividing the clean from the unclean? To draw out peoples’ humanity when they have been stripped of it? To treat suffering people with a dignity the world denies them? (the whole thing here)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)