Posts
Fellow Noshers,
I usually like a corner table here. One that allows an unobstructed view of just what is going on. Some people are just people watchers, and I am one of those. Other nights, though, the most interesting seat is one near the window. Here, you still get a chance to see the circus inside; but often the best show is the one out on the street.
There are the folks who ate at the organic fod place down the street, or maybe those who do their own home cookin'. Doesn't matter. They share a common mission: improve diet and nutritional status, for everyone. They seem to believe the best strategy is to harass the Diners' patrons before they can enter. "Dont' go in there! That stuff is gonna kill you! How can you eat that crap? You people are sickos and perverts for liking that stuff! You should have seen the health inspector's report! He's gonna shut this place down someday, just you wait! And then how are you gonna like starving to death? You people are going to rot from the inside! The surgeon general warned you about places like this!"
What does it mean to have mercy on the Diners' victims? The voices offering solutions to the crisis divide mainly into two camps: those who view the diseases in purely physical terms to be handled with a purely physical approach, and those who understand the spiritual and moral dimension inherent in this pandemic.
Critics of the demonstrators, however, warn that even if they do care, these believers offer the wrong solutions—solutions that jeopardize health and alienate the needy in the process. Critics complain that the demonstrators show "too much morality" and "too little sense" in their fight. The critics, defenders of the Diner, claim that nutritional deficiencies and progressive food-related illnesses affect everybody.
But rather than answer the root causes of the disease, they are in denial of their sickness and insist that to advocate moral changes is to pass judgment. The disease is AIDS, and it usually strikes at fairly discrete groups such as homosexuals, prostitutes, drug addicts. It is no respecter of morals, and will affect the general population, including the innocent.
It is exactly for this reason the demonstrators should discourage risky behavior (unfaithfulness, promiscuity, drug use) that brings it into the rest of society. That is not finger-pointing or judging; that is true compassion. This includes discouraging dehumanizing situations, including prostitution and sex trafficking.
The critics will say that such attitudes will leave the drug addicts, homosexuals and prostitutes in the cold. The real test for the demonstrators' beliefs will be to bring those in to a warmer place. Those who disagree with promoting abstinence and fidelity in the AIDS fight seem to believe proponents are just moralizing—standing in judgment of victims. But Christians realize that AIDS requires more than physical answers. Most of the situations that lead to the contraction of HIV are not merely physical: They begin with a decision (with the exceptions, of course, of rape victims, vulnerable children, etc.).
The AIDS crisis is about evil—"the sanctity of life” (people devalue their own lives and resign themselves to contracting AIDS); “disproportionate suffering” (one bad decision could lead to unimaginable suffering); “and a dozen other things—trust, fear, weakness, traditions, temptation”: intangible realities that cannot be quantified, nor treated with physical solutions.
Those who eschew any moral dimension to AIDS prevention seem to believe humans are good already and don’t need to change—that AIDS is something completely disconnected from human nature that needs only to be wiped away with condoms and drugs.
But this denies truth. Life is not the way it's supposed to be. This is more evidence of the Fall. And because of the Fall, we are not any "good". If we were any good, then what would happen if there were enough clean needles and condoms?
Without internal change, would we still have predatory men, prostitution, drug users in slavery to mind-numbing chemicals? With enough condoms and clean needles, would you be able to say your job is done, their lives are whole?
Every franchise of the Diner needs a good soup kitchen next door.
~Bill
Thursday, February 28, 2008
A Hammer With Which to Smash It
"When your judgements are in the earth, the inhabitatants of the world learn righteousness." Isaiah 26:9.
One of the virtues of each visit to the Diner is that it provides a kind of reality check on America's continuing moral decline.
I don’t eat much when I'm here, but enough to notice dining habits and trends, and maybe overhear the talk about hot new TV shows or a movie. This fall, as far as I can tell, we’ll be treated to a series that glorifies the life of “cool crime.” Another series—the continuing story of a group of classmates-turned-near-adults—features a woman who can spell “denial” and has a penchant for falling in love with homosexual men. And, of course, we are promised new and more outrageous “reality programs” that have nothing whatsoever to do with the reality anyone ever lives, but everything to do with such skills as getting the best of someone else at anybody and everybody’s expense, all for the sake of fifteen minutes of fame and a big chunk of money.
Television serves as a mirror of society, in a strange kind of way. It reflects what many people think and feel, but typically keep to themselves. By displaying for public scrutiny what we’re secretly thinking and feeling—but wouldn’t dream of acting on—TV encourages us to go on and let it all hang out. Which, as we do, has the effect of moving the moral boundaries back a little more toward decadence. But before we blame television at the cantina of corruption for our moral slide, we need to consider what, in particular, is responsible for creating this favorable climate for increasing numbers of selections from the dessert menu at your local Diner.
It’s not TV. Rather, it is the Church’s indifference toward, even scorn for, the Law of God as the primary source, that fuels America’s continuing moral slippage. This "Christian nation", if it ever truly was one, has lost its anchor and is drifting. It seems it no longer matters if we're eating at the Cultural Diner, or in the Fellowship Hall.
Active or passive rejection of God’s Law is nothing new, not even among believers in God. Throughout most of her history, Israel in the Old Testament ignored, fudged, and blatantly disobeyed the Law of God. It was for their persistence on this course that God ultimately brought them to judgment. The books of all the prophets are filled with warnings, threats, and denunciations against the rulers and people of Israel for their rebellion against the Law of God.
There are two types of abuse of God's Law. The first, that of the Judaizers, tried to make obedience to the Law a prerequisite of salvation. According to them, one is saved by believing in Jesus and submitting to ritual requirements of Jewish law. Paul rightly identified this teaching as “another gospel.”
The second error, the other extreme of the pendulum swing, wants to do away with the Law altogether. Paul addressed this incipient problem in the book of Romans. The moral corruption, seen so often in Church cafeterias today, takes the latter form. The Food Pyramid is posted, the talk is of Food Groups and healthy eating; but the patrons say they are not bound by the RDA, as though they had to make any effort to follow them. We live in a time of grace, not law. The Spirit is our guide in ethical matters, pouring forth the love of God from within us, so that we do not need to exert ourselves, laboring to understand or keep the Law of God.
While we loudly protest the removal of the Ten Commandments from the public square, we are shamefully silent about their absence from the pulpit, Sunday School classrooms, and church discipline. Instead, in all these places the Beatles' ethic is all that remains: “All you need is love.” You know, just love one another, as Jesus loved us. Don’t try to put anybody under the Law—except, of course, those pagans and secularists who insist on removing the Commandments from court houses and schools.
The result is that, as a community, the ethic we demonstrate is not much different from that of the increasingly decadent society in which we live. Except for our “church activities,” we as a community are not that much different from our neighbors. We are nearly as materialistic, spend as much time watching television and participating in other frivolous diversions, have about the same divorce rate, and in just about every other way demonstrate that we’re just “one of the guys” when it comes to everyday ethical behavior. We actually show favor to unGodliness—greed and lust, anger and gossip, Sabbath-breaking and blasphemy, stealing and murder, lies and hypocrisy, adultery and incivility.
Drifting on the sea of love, untethered by the Law of God, the church is under the shadow of perilous icebergs. Having refused to decisively proclaim the goodnes of the Law, the church has opened the door and welcomed in every form of unrighteousness. The church has encouraged corrupt and decadent dining, and made it increasingly difficult for the world to make healthy choices.
Nutrition-related illnesses are progressive, debilitating, and often go undetected for years. How long has it been since your last check-up?
Cultural Nurse-in-Training,
~Bill
One of the virtues of each visit to the Diner is that it provides a kind of reality check on America's continuing moral decline.
I don’t eat much when I'm here, but enough to notice dining habits and trends, and maybe overhear the talk about hot new TV shows or a movie. This fall, as far as I can tell, we’ll be treated to a series that glorifies the life of “cool crime.” Another series—the continuing story of a group of classmates-turned-near-adults—features a woman who can spell “denial” and has a penchant for falling in love with homosexual men. And, of course, we are promised new and more outrageous “reality programs” that have nothing whatsoever to do with the reality anyone ever lives, but everything to do with such skills as getting the best of someone else at anybody and everybody’s expense, all for the sake of fifteen minutes of fame and a big chunk of money.
Television serves as a mirror of society, in a strange kind of way. It reflects what many people think and feel, but typically keep to themselves. By displaying for public scrutiny what we’re secretly thinking and feeling—but wouldn’t dream of acting on—TV encourages us to go on and let it all hang out. Which, as we do, has the effect of moving the moral boundaries back a little more toward decadence. But before we blame television at the cantina of corruption for our moral slide, we need to consider what, in particular, is responsible for creating this favorable climate for increasing numbers of selections from the dessert menu at your local Diner.
It’s not TV. Rather, it is the Church’s indifference toward, even scorn for, the Law of God as the primary source, that fuels America’s continuing moral slippage. This "Christian nation", if it ever truly was one, has lost its anchor and is drifting. It seems it no longer matters if we're eating at the Cultural Diner, or in the Fellowship Hall.
Active or passive rejection of God’s Law is nothing new, not even among believers in God. Throughout most of her history, Israel in the Old Testament ignored, fudged, and blatantly disobeyed the Law of God. It was for their persistence on this course that God ultimately brought them to judgment. The books of all the prophets are filled with warnings, threats, and denunciations against the rulers and people of Israel for their rebellion against the Law of God.
There are two types of abuse of God's Law. The first, that of the Judaizers, tried to make obedience to the Law a prerequisite of salvation. According to them, one is saved by believing in Jesus and submitting to ritual requirements of Jewish law. Paul rightly identified this teaching as “another gospel.”
The second error, the other extreme of the pendulum swing, wants to do away with the Law altogether. Paul addressed this incipient problem in the book of Romans. The moral corruption, seen so often in Church cafeterias today, takes the latter form. The Food Pyramid is posted, the talk is of Food Groups and healthy eating; but the patrons say they are not bound by the RDA, as though they had to make any effort to follow them. We live in a time of grace, not law. The Spirit is our guide in ethical matters, pouring forth the love of God from within us, so that we do not need to exert ourselves, laboring to understand or keep the Law of God.
While we loudly protest the removal of the Ten Commandments from the public square, we are shamefully silent about their absence from the pulpit, Sunday School classrooms, and church discipline. Instead, in all these places the Beatles' ethic is all that remains: “All you need is love.” You know, just love one another, as Jesus loved us. Don’t try to put anybody under the Law—except, of course, those pagans and secularists who insist on removing the Commandments from court houses and schools.
The result is that, as a community, the ethic we demonstrate is not much different from that of the increasingly decadent society in which we live. Except for our “church activities,” we as a community are not that much different from our neighbors. We are nearly as materialistic, spend as much time watching television and participating in other frivolous diversions, have about the same divorce rate, and in just about every other way demonstrate that we’re just “one of the guys” when it comes to everyday ethical behavior. We actually show favor to unGodliness—greed and lust, anger and gossip, Sabbath-breaking and blasphemy, stealing and murder, lies and hypocrisy, adultery and incivility.
Drifting on the sea of love, untethered by the Law of God, the church is under the shadow of perilous icebergs. Having refused to decisively proclaim the goodnes of the Law, the church has opened the door and welcomed in every form of unrighteousness. The church has encouraged corrupt and decadent dining, and made it increasingly difficult for the world to make healthy choices.
Nutrition-related illnesses are progressive, debilitating, and often go undetected for years. How long has it been since your last check-up?
Cultural Nurse-in-Training,
~Bill
Sunday, December 02, 2007
Just like Mom used to make.
Fellow noshers,
I try not to be surprised here anymore. Occasionally, they surprise me, though. Since when do owners and franchisees of the Diner care about the health of anything except their wallets?
But there are nights I'll meander over to my usual seat at the Diner, to hear some conversation like this: "That was my favorite thing on the menu! I can't believe they took it off!" "You know, they're just doing it because of the health-food nuts. They can't stand it when anyone is enjoying themselves. They only want us to eat granola and grass!"
You know how these things come and go. For example, for centuries people were eating eggs. Then some brainstormer had the idea that eggs were bad for you, and nobody ate eggs. The information out more recently has said,"Maybe we were wrong. Maybe eggs aren't so bad for you. In fact, they might be good for you."
Can't they make up my mind? What exactly is good for me? What exactly can I expect on the menu here? Why does management at the Diner occasionally express a conscience that doesn't make sense?
___________________________________________________________________
While some within the faddish health-food movement have renounced infant cannibalism, I think it’s time to reconsider putting it back on the menu in light of the differences between the culture of our day and the cultures that existed in Bible times.
It has long been assumed in the "civilized" West that infant cannibalism is wrong. Of course, a healthy child should not be eaten except under the most extreme circumstances (e.g. on a life-boat stranded at sea, as Melville pointed out). But is it really fair to continue to assume and assert that eating the very young is wrong under all circumstances?
The Old Testament is quite clear on this matter - the ancient Hebrews were not to sacrifice, and thus eat, their young. However, the language used is not specific enough to condemn all child-eating, particularly that done in the right context, and with the right motives.
God’s primary concern in prohibiting child sacrifice seems to be to discourage the adoption of pagan practices, which would distract the Israelites from their worship of the one true God. We might also safely assume that the widespread sacrifice of infants would lead to the murder of infants, since the number that died naturally might not be sufficient to meet the demand. So, God’s prohibition against consuming infant flesh was founded on two very sensible premises:
1. Infant cannibalism would lead Israel into idolatry.
2. Infant cannibalism would result in harm to living infants.
Do these premises remain valid today, and should we still abstain from infant cannibalism? First, let me say that I’m not talking about gratuitous, pig-out infant cannibalism; just as I don’t advocate eating a whole bag of chips at one sitting. I’m talking about moderate, civilized infant cannibalism (which I prefer to call fetal consumption), much as one might eat caviar - occasionally, responsibly, and with the utmost tact and taste.
The Bible may condemn child sacrifice and pagan cannibalism, but those are quite different from modern fetal consumption, which was not known in the days of Moses or Paul. Today, we have a steady supply of deceased infant flesh, from a variety of legitimate sources, which I need not enumerate. Suffice it to say that, if prices were fixed at a fairly high level, say, $10 per ounce, the demand could be met without difficulty, and there would be no risk to living children. The same medical technology that allows organs to be "kept on ice" until transplantation allows the flesh of our young to be preserved until it reaches the marketplace.
But why bother defending fetal consumption? Who is interested in it? The fact is, the Christians who are in favor of infant cannibalism have been ostracized from our churches. They have been forced to seek refuge and community elsewhere. There is tolerance for all other types of behavior within the church, it seems, except infant cannibalism.
How long can we allow this hypocrisy to continue, while our alienated brothers and sisters in the faith are left outside in the cold, picking their teeth and longing to be let inside to warm their feet by the fire? Here and now, I am calling for an end to the outdated, judgmental taboo against infant cannibalism. Will you join me?
_________________________________________________________________
Obviously, this is a satirical post intended to elicit discussion about the process we use to determine whether a moral prohibition in the bible is applicable today. For instance, consider the post above in light of the modern arguments for approval of homosexuality. More than once I have encountered the argument that loving, monogamous homosexual relationships were not existent in Paul’s day, nor was homosexuality recognized as a biologically influenced or genetically determined trait; therefore, biblical injunctions against it are irrelevant.
I want to call this line of reasoning into question. I will agree that the practice of monogamous homosexuals today is vastly more preferable in every way than the idol-worshipping, prostitution-based, commitment-free version familiar to Paul.
But how far can we take the argument that our culture has created a new version of some particular practice, that falls outside of scripture’s jurisdiction? Is adultery OK if your spouse doesn’t mind? Watch TV today, eat at the Diner today, and you see that this is more than a theoretical argument. We could easily argue that "consensual adultery" didn’t exist in Paul’s day, due to the level of stigma and shame surrounding extramarital relations; today, this stigma is largely absent in many cultures, so the bible’s statements on adultery are not relevant, because they’re addressing a different set of circumstances entirely.
In many of the discussions on the subject, homosexual activity is treated as a sin different from all others, misunderstood and attacked by homophobes today. I am attempting to frame a debate about the terms in which we discuss this and other other topics of morality. I don’t think the argument I’ve described above (with infant cannibalism, monogamous homosexuality, and consensual adultery as examples) is a particularly good one, but it does get your attention, doesn't it?
-----
Do you see anything you like on the menu here?
Your friendly, Neighborhood Apatheist, With the Iron Stomach,
~Bill
I try not to be surprised here anymore. Occasionally, they surprise me, though. Since when do owners and franchisees of the Diner care about the health of anything except their wallets?
But there are nights I'll meander over to my usual seat at the Diner, to hear some conversation like this: "That was my favorite thing on the menu! I can't believe they took it off!" "You know, they're just doing it because of the health-food nuts. They can't stand it when anyone is enjoying themselves. They only want us to eat granola and grass!"
You know how these things come and go. For example, for centuries people were eating eggs. Then some brainstormer had the idea that eggs were bad for you, and nobody ate eggs. The information out more recently has said,"Maybe we were wrong. Maybe eggs aren't so bad for you. In fact, they might be good for you."
Can't they make up my mind? What exactly is good for me? What exactly can I expect on the menu here? Why does management at the Diner occasionally express a conscience that doesn't make sense?
___________________________________________________________________
While some within the faddish health-food movement have renounced infant cannibalism, I think it’s time to reconsider putting it back on the menu in light of the differences between the culture of our day and the cultures that existed in Bible times.
It has long been assumed in the "civilized" West that infant cannibalism is wrong. Of course, a healthy child should not be eaten except under the most extreme circumstances (e.g. on a life-boat stranded at sea, as Melville pointed out). But is it really fair to continue to assume and assert that eating the very young is wrong under all circumstances?
The Old Testament is quite clear on this matter - the ancient Hebrews were not to sacrifice, and thus eat, their young. However, the language used is not specific enough to condemn all child-eating, particularly that done in the right context, and with the right motives.
God’s primary concern in prohibiting child sacrifice seems to be to discourage the adoption of pagan practices, which would distract the Israelites from their worship of the one true God. We might also safely assume that the widespread sacrifice of infants would lead to the murder of infants, since the number that died naturally might not be sufficient to meet the demand. So, God’s prohibition against consuming infant flesh was founded on two very sensible premises:
1. Infant cannibalism would lead Israel into idolatry.
2. Infant cannibalism would result in harm to living infants.
Do these premises remain valid today, and should we still abstain from infant cannibalism? First, let me say that I’m not talking about gratuitous, pig-out infant cannibalism; just as I don’t advocate eating a whole bag of chips at one sitting. I’m talking about moderate, civilized infant cannibalism (which I prefer to call fetal consumption), much as one might eat caviar - occasionally, responsibly, and with the utmost tact and taste.
The Bible may condemn child sacrifice and pagan cannibalism, but those are quite different from modern fetal consumption, which was not known in the days of Moses or Paul. Today, we have a steady supply of deceased infant flesh, from a variety of legitimate sources, which I need not enumerate. Suffice it to say that, if prices were fixed at a fairly high level, say, $10 per ounce, the demand could be met without difficulty, and there would be no risk to living children. The same medical technology that allows organs to be "kept on ice" until transplantation allows the flesh of our young to be preserved until it reaches the marketplace.
But why bother defending fetal consumption? Who is interested in it? The fact is, the Christians who are in favor of infant cannibalism have been ostracized from our churches. They have been forced to seek refuge and community elsewhere. There is tolerance for all other types of behavior within the church, it seems, except infant cannibalism.
How long can we allow this hypocrisy to continue, while our alienated brothers and sisters in the faith are left outside in the cold, picking their teeth and longing to be let inside to warm their feet by the fire? Here and now, I am calling for an end to the outdated, judgmental taboo against infant cannibalism. Will you join me?
_________________________________________________________________
Obviously, this is a satirical post intended to elicit discussion about the process we use to determine whether a moral prohibition in the bible is applicable today. For instance, consider the post above in light of the modern arguments for approval of homosexuality. More than once I have encountered the argument that loving, monogamous homosexual relationships were not existent in Paul’s day, nor was homosexuality recognized as a biologically influenced or genetically determined trait; therefore, biblical injunctions against it are irrelevant.
I want to call this line of reasoning into question. I will agree that the practice of monogamous homosexuals today is vastly more preferable in every way than the idol-worshipping, prostitution-based, commitment-free version familiar to Paul.
But how far can we take the argument that our culture has created a new version of some particular practice, that falls outside of scripture’s jurisdiction? Is adultery OK if your spouse doesn’t mind? Watch TV today, eat at the Diner today, and you see that this is more than a theoretical argument. We could easily argue that "consensual adultery" didn’t exist in Paul’s day, due to the level of stigma and shame surrounding extramarital relations; today, this stigma is largely absent in many cultures, so the bible’s statements on adultery are not relevant, because they’re addressing a different set of circumstances entirely.
In many of the discussions on the subject, homosexual activity is treated as a sin different from all others, misunderstood and attacked by homophobes today. I am attempting to frame a debate about the terms in which we discuss this and other other topics of morality. I don’t think the argument I’ve described above (with infant cannibalism, monogamous homosexuality, and consensual adultery as examples) is a particularly good one, but it does get your attention, doesn't it?
-----
Do you see anything you like on the menu here?
Your friendly, Neighborhood Apatheist, With the Iron Stomach,
~Bill
...and I didn't make reservations.
Fellow noshers,
I see them almost every time I am at the Diner: Roe and Wade. They love this place; are here everyday, for every meal. This year marks their thirty-fourth birthday, and they are celebrating.
We've seen how embarassing the restaurants make it for us on our birthdays. It seems the entire staff, and anyone they could drag off the street, come clapping along with this wimpy little cupcake, with that lonely candle on top burning at both ends. Don't you hate to be that person, singled out for surviving yet another year? Our friends Roe and Wade, however, don't seem disturbed at all to be in the limelight.
Ironically, despite being well-meaning people who simply want folks to be able to choose for themselves, this celebration isn't all that it could be, even for Roe and Wade. My perception is that the Diner is always at capacity, not a seat left in the house. It is only now that I look around and realize how many seats remain empty. The fire marshall would be pleased.
You know, we really should not be surprised that today brings a light crowd to the Diner. Though this is the busiest night of the week (it seems it's always the busiest night here) the patrons at this cantina of corruption grew up knowing that one-third of their generation, and their fellow diners, was missing: tens of millions of brothers and sisters, classmates and soccer team members—all dead on the altar of “choice.” They grew up knowing that they themselves might not have survived if their mothers’ circumstances had been a little different. In a way, how can we blame them for some of the (non)-nutritional choices they themselves make after such a revelation?
For once, I am grateful to be able to partake of the meal served here.
I think I've lost my appetite,
~Bill
P.S. Since 1973, over 30 million legal abortions have been performed in the United States. Norma McCorvey (Jane Roe) alleged at the time, that her pregnancy was the result of a rape. She later admitted she was lying. Since becoming a Christian, Norma McCorvey has fought to make abortion illegal.
I see them almost every time I am at the Diner: Roe and Wade. They love this place; are here everyday, for every meal. This year marks their thirty-fourth birthday, and they are celebrating.
We've seen how embarassing the restaurants make it for us on our birthdays. It seems the entire staff, and anyone they could drag off the street, come clapping along with this wimpy little cupcake, with that lonely candle on top burning at both ends. Don't you hate to be that person, singled out for surviving yet another year? Our friends Roe and Wade, however, don't seem disturbed at all to be in the limelight.
Ironically, despite being well-meaning people who simply want folks to be able to choose for themselves, this celebration isn't all that it could be, even for Roe and Wade. My perception is that the Diner is always at capacity, not a seat left in the house. It is only now that I look around and realize how many seats remain empty. The fire marshall would be pleased.
You know, we really should not be surprised that today brings a light crowd to the Diner. Though this is the busiest night of the week (it seems it's always the busiest night here) the patrons at this cantina of corruption grew up knowing that one-third of their generation, and their fellow diners, was missing: tens of millions of brothers and sisters, classmates and soccer team members—all dead on the altar of “choice.” They grew up knowing that they themselves might not have survived if their mothers’ circumstances had been a little different. In a way, how can we blame them for some of the (non)-nutritional choices they themselves make after such a revelation?
For once, I am grateful to be able to partake of the meal served here.
I think I've lost my appetite,
~Bill
P.S. Since 1973, over 30 million legal abortions have been performed in the United States. Norma McCorvey (Jane Roe) alleged at the time, that her pregnancy was the result of a rape. She later admitted she was lying. Since becoming a Christian, Norma McCorvey has fought to make abortion illegal.
Elbows off the table please. Table manners revisited.
Faithful readers,
Some dude in the Bible thought a lot about meals. Often He likened the kingdom of God to a feast. Perhaps even more frequently, He hosted meals that didn’t simply point to the kingdom but revealed it: scandalous meals where the least and the lost were included and the first and the found were excluded; meals that judged all other human meals and embodied a new vision of life in community.
Interestingly, that dude left behind a family of disciples gathered around a heavenly meal where bread and wine are shared. It is here as the family of God that we learn the “table manners” of His kingdom. As we see the bread and wine, we are reminded of the abundance of God’s goodness. Here, we share that bread and wine and learn together to be a generous and sharing people. As we eat the bread, we are reminded of those who have no bread. Is it any surprise that the first church in Jerusalem, gathered around so many meals with this dude, was also a community about which Luke said, “Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need” (Acts 2:45). Learning His table manners led to a new community where “there were no needy persons among them” (4:34).
But then consider the Corinthian church against which Paul rails, “When you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat” (1 Corinthians 11:20). The family meal had degenerated into a food fight. Why? Because the poor were being humiliated, doing without, even as the rich went home stuffed (vv. 20-22). Is it any coincidence that those in Corinth likely never dined with the dude?
As often as we meet, we gather around a meal that is a foretaste of that great Day, the Marriage Feast of the Lamb, when humanity will live again without want in an abundant creation loosed from its bondage to the curse. That dude came announcing good news for the poor (Luke 4:18-19)—by His death and resurrection the Banquet has begun, the year of Jubilee has come.
As we go into places where poverty and hunger have eclipsed hope, we go in the name of the dude who says to the poor, “This is the year of the Lord’s favor. I am the Bread of Life.” We go with the gospel's words and deeds of justice that the poor might taste the glory of the banquet that lasts forever.
Will work for Food,
Your Friendly Neighborhood Infidel,
~Bill
Some dude in the Bible thought a lot about meals. Often He likened the kingdom of God to a feast. Perhaps even more frequently, He hosted meals that didn’t simply point to the kingdom but revealed it: scandalous meals where the least and the lost were included and the first and the found were excluded; meals that judged all other human meals and embodied a new vision of life in community.
Interestingly, that dude left behind a family of disciples gathered around a heavenly meal where bread and wine are shared. It is here as the family of God that we learn the “table manners” of His kingdom. As we see the bread and wine, we are reminded of the abundance of God’s goodness. Here, we share that bread and wine and learn together to be a generous and sharing people. As we eat the bread, we are reminded of those who have no bread. Is it any surprise that the first church in Jerusalem, gathered around so many meals with this dude, was also a community about which Luke said, “Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need” (Acts 2:45). Learning His table manners led to a new community where “there were no needy persons among them” (4:34).
But then consider the Corinthian church against which Paul rails, “When you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat” (1 Corinthians 11:20). The family meal had degenerated into a food fight. Why? Because the poor were being humiliated, doing without, even as the rich went home stuffed (vv. 20-22). Is it any coincidence that those in Corinth likely never dined with the dude?
As often as we meet, we gather around a meal that is a foretaste of that great Day, the Marriage Feast of the Lamb, when humanity will live again without want in an abundant creation loosed from its bondage to the curse. That dude came announcing good news for the poor (Luke 4:18-19)—by His death and resurrection the Banquet has begun, the year of Jubilee has come.
As we go into places where poverty and hunger have eclipsed hope, we go in the name of the dude who says to the poor, “This is the year of the Lord’s favor. I am the Bread of Life.” We go with the gospel's words and deeds of justice that the poor might taste the glory of the banquet that lasts forever.
Will work for Food,
Your Friendly Neighborhood Infidel,
~Bill
"Fast-er! Fast-er!"
"Some have exalted religious fasting beyond all Scripture and reason; and others have utterly disregarded it."--John Wesley
Dear faithful readers,
There is much to be learned about a person by observing how their spare time is spent. (I know, there is no such animal as spare time). For instance, I like landscaping; digging in the dirt, planting, planning a new bed or garden project, even weeding. Consequently, I look at landscaping everywhere I go. The neighborhood, the shopping centers, attractions such as the zoo are fascinating for me. They provide ideas and inspiration, respect for the hard work and skill of others who share my passion.
I am often caught wondering what the ideas were behind many of the works I see. I wonder if the finished work resembles the plans when begun, and how a designer may react to unforeseen obstacles. Would they doggedly plow ahead with the original plan, or allow a design to create itself along with the flow of the land it will inhabit? Does anyone else wonder these things? Does anyone else wonder what the new landscape replaced? What was it about the natural features that was so bad it had to be dug up, abandoned? Our American landscape is dotted with shrines to the Golden Arches and an assortment of Pizza Temples. The new kudzoo, the invasive species sweeping our nation, has taken over in the form of four-dollar-a-cup lattes and Frappuccinoes.
Fasting seems to be out of step with the times, a relic from another era that was less enlightened. Both in and out of the church, fasting has fallen on hard times. It has been in general disrepute for years. Occasionally it will make a comeback in the world of fad diets, but nowhere is it seen to be of any spiritual importance, nor does it possess the biblical balance the historical church awarded it.
What could account for the disregard for a subject so frequently mentioned in Scripture? Perhaps it is the constant propaganda fed us today. The menu at the Cultural Diner has convinced us that if we do not have three large meals a day, with snacks in between, we are on the verge of starvation. The popular belief at our Diner is that it is a positive virtue to satisfy every human appetite.
Fasting is obsolete. Even the attempt to fast today brings questions and remarks, ranging from the curious to the scornful. "Isn't that bad for your health?" "You won't have any strength or energy to work." "Here, eat something. You must be hungry." So much of the modern conception of fasting is utter nonsense, based upon prejudice or an improper relationship with the political hunger strikes.
The fact is, that though the body can only go a short time without air or water, it can go a great deal longer without food before having any deleterious physical effects or starvation begins. Usually about forty days. Forty days, huh? It has even been shown that persons and animals on calorie-restricted diets live up to 25% longer than those who are not. Fasting can have beneficial physical effects.
While the list of biblical figures and great Christians who fasted is a virtual Who's Who of persons we should admire, fasting is not an exclusively Christian discipline. All major religions of the world have recognized its merit. Even Hippocrates, the founder of modern medicine, believed in fasting. This does not make it right or even desirable, but it should give us pause to be willing to re-evaluate our assumptions concerning the discipline of fasting.
Since there are no laws to bind us, we are free to fast on any day.
Yours, ~Bill
Dear faithful readers,
There is much to be learned about a person by observing how their spare time is spent. (I know, there is no such animal as spare time). For instance, I like landscaping; digging in the dirt, planting, planning a new bed or garden project, even weeding. Consequently, I look at landscaping everywhere I go. The neighborhood, the shopping centers, attractions such as the zoo are fascinating for me. They provide ideas and inspiration, respect for the hard work and skill of others who share my passion.
I am often caught wondering what the ideas were behind many of the works I see. I wonder if the finished work resembles the plans when begun, and how a designer may react to unforeseen obstacles. Would they doggedly plow ahead with the original plan, or allow a design to create itself along with the flow of the land it will inhabit? Does anyone else wonder these things? Does anyone else wonder what the new landscape replaced? What was it about the natural features that was so bad it had to be dug up, abandoned? Our American landscape is dotted with shrines to the Golden Arches and an assortment of Pizza Temples. The new kudzoo, the invasive species sweeping our nation, has taken over in the form of four-dollar-a-cup lattes and Frappuccinoes.
Fasting seems to be out of step with the times, a relic from another era that was less enlightened. Both in and out of the church, fasting has fallen on hard times. It has been in general disrepute for years. Occasionally it will make a comeback in the world of fad diets, but nowhere is it seen to be of any spiritual importance, nor does it possess the biblical balance the historical church awarded it.
What could account for the disregard for a subject so frequently mentioned in Scripture? Perhaps it is the constant propaganda fed us today. The menu at the Cultural Diner has convinced us that if we do not have three large meals a day, with snacks in between, we are on the verge of starvation. The popular belief at our Diner is that it is a positive virtue to satisfy every human appetite.
Fasting is obsolete. Even the attempt to fast today brings questions and remarks, ranging from the curious to the scornful. "Isn't that bad for your health?" "You won't have any strength or energy to work." "Here, eat something. You must be hungry." So much of the modern conception of fasting is utter nonsense, based upon prejudice or an improper relationship with the political hunger strikes.
The fact is, that though the body can only go a short time without air or water, it can go a great deal longer without food before having any deleterious physical effects or starvation begins. Usually about forty days. Forty days, huh? It has even been shown that persons and animals on calorie-restricted diets live up to 25% longer than those who are not. Fasting can have beneficial physical effects.
While the list of biblical figures and great Christians who fasted is a virtual Who's Who of persons we should admire, fasting is not an exclusively Christian discipline. All major religions of the world have recognized its merit. Even Hippocrates, the founder of modern medicine, believed in fasting. This does not make it right or even desirable, but it should give us pause to be willing to re-evaluate our assumptions concerning the discipline of fasting.
Since there are no laws to bind us, we are free to fast on any day.
Yours, ~Bill
Gobble! Gobble! Advent is Missing!!!
Dear Readers,
By now your conscience should be clear of Thanksgiving gorgings. Let this be the first of the Yuletide deliveries to arrive and mark the beginning of the Christmas season. Well, maybe not, since Christmas trees and decorations invaded Wal-Mart even before Halloween.
It seems the end of Advent begins earlier each year. In this festive season celebrating the omnipresence of Christmas, we must wonder how our holy days have turned into holidays. Christmas has devoured Advent, gobbled it up with the turkey giblets and the goblets of seasonal ale.
Every secularized holiday tends to lose the context it had in the liturgical year. Across the nation, even in many churches, Easter has hopped across Lent, Halloween has frightened away All Saints, and New Year's has drunk up Epiphany. Still, the disappearance of Advent seems especially disturbing–for it's injured even the secular Christmas season: opening a hole, from Thanksgiving on, that can be filled only with fiercer, madder, and wilder attempts to anticipate Christmas.
We've let this thing get out of hand, using Christ's birthday as an excuse to shop. Instead of Advent we celebrate Black Friday and Cyber Monday. Our sacraments are red-dot sales and blue-light specials. Instead of the Gospels, we read the colorful Sunday ads. We drink up the holiday spirits and wake up with a credit-card hangover.
How can we reclaim Christmas?
Your Fiendly, Neighborhood Apatheist,
~Bill
By now your conscience should be clear of Thanksgiving gorgings. Let this be the first of the Yuletide deliveries to arrive and mark the beginning of the Christmas season. Well, maybe not, since Christmas trees and decorations invaded Wal-Mart even before Halloween.
It seems the end of Advent begins earlier each year. In this festive season celebrating the omnipresence of Christmas, we must wonder how our holy days have turned into holidays. Christmas has devoured Advent, gobbled it up with the turkey giblets and the goblets of seasonal ale.
Every secularized holiday tends to lose the context it had in the liturgical year. Across the nation, even in many churches, Easter has hopped across Lent, Halloween has frightened away All Saints, and New Year's has drunk up Epiphany. Still, the disappearance of Advent seems especially disturbing–for it's injured even the secular Christmas season: opening a hole, from Thanksgiving on, that can be filled only with fiercer, madder, and wilder attempts to anticipate Christmas.
We've let this thing get out of hand, using Christ's birthday as an excuse to shop. Instead of Advent we celebrate Black Friday and Cyber Monday. Our sacraments are red-dot sales and blue-light specials. Instead of the Gospels, we read the colorful Sunday ads. We drink up the holiday spirits and wake up with a credit-card hangover.
How can we reclaim Christmas?
Your Fiendly, Neighborhood Apatheist,
~Bill
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)