Posts
Fellow Diners,
Even the Cultural Diner is subject to the occasional visit from the health inspector. You know those folks, right? Sent out by health department as a consumer advocate, to ensure food the public is consuming will be, if not tasteful, at least not poisonous.
It seems to me lately, however, that the health inspector might actually be a Diner employee. I can't prove this, just like no one can prove the media is a Democratic puppy dog, either.
Anyway, let me tell you what is on my mind. I know not everyone likes meatloaf, but I do. I like the way that no two meatloaves (sp?) are the same. Each franchise plays around with the ingredients, adds a pinch of this or a dash of that, and, voila! The secret, and perhaps, unrepeatable secret recipe. Now, the Diner undergoes a renovation every few years; the redesigns are usually nothing drastic, yet over time the place has become unrecognizable to some. Yet the management here is not stupid. They always keep a few of the traditional favorites on the menu, so as not to alienate the older, longtime customers still attached to tradition. Old habits die hard for the traditionalists, a customer base the Diner serves only grudgingly as the rest menu drifts further and further away from the old codgers' tastes. We all know, they'll die off someday anyway, and then we can remove meatloaf from the menu. To be replaced with some sort of "Iron Chef"-du jour, naturally.
Nobody really knows who was the first one to decide that steak and potatoes would go great together. Some claim that the two just sort of fell yogether on one plate by accident once. Others claim there is no good reason but prejudice that keeps two potatoes, or two steaks, from being on the same plate together; and we would still call it steak and potatoes. Hmmm. Something about that may not sound right to you. It didn't sound right to some customers at the Diner either. So when the health inspector told them the menu was going to change, they got together and petitioned for steak and potatoes to remain on the menu; and for steak and potatoes to remain, steak and potatoes. Problem solved, right?
Well, not so fast. Now the health department says those old codgers can't do it that way. It's unfair to the folks who want to order steak and steak; or potatoes and potatoes. This decision threatens to ripple through your local franchise of the Diner, too. So watch out.
_______________________________________________________
Yesterday, federal district court Judge Vaughn Walker overturned California's Proposition 8, which defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
While the immediate impact is limited to the state of California, the consequences of this egregious bit of judicial overreach threatens to be nationwide.
Two years ago, the California Supreme Court ruled that denying same-sex couples the right to marry violated the state constitution. In response, supporters of traditional marriage followed California's legal and democratic process: They collected enough signatures to put a proposed amendment to the state constitution on the ballot.
After a hard-fought campaign in which they were outspent by the other side, Proposition 8 supporters, including many African American pastors, enacted the referendum. Having lost the democratic battle, the losers again returned to the courts, this time the federal courts.
They argued that denying same-sex couples the right to marry violated the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Throughout the 13-day trial, Judge Walker's sympathies were clear to observers.
He ruled yesterday that "moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians." Warming to the task, he added that "the evidence shows conclusively that Proposition 8 enacts, without reason"—note that, "without reason"—"a private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite sex couples."
Even though his ruling isn't surprising, his dismissal of the opinions of the people of California and five thousand-plus years of human tradition is breath-taking. Then again, inasmuch as Walker is one of the few openly gay federal judges, maybe his dismissal shouldn't shock us, either.
Let's be clear. What's at stake here goes beyond California and even beyond marriage itself. The reasoning that overturned California's law, that said that the right of gays to marry is a fundamental constitutional right, would, if applied nationally, overturn similar laws throughout the country.
As Catholics and Mormons, who led the Proposition 8 campaign, points out, it would be a mistake to think that the battle about the definition of marriage is only over marriage—disastrous as that is. A loss on this issue will have devastating consequences for our personal freedoms.
Catholics and Mormons point to the weakening of parental rights, of course the attack on religious freedom and individuals practicing their faith in public. People who oppose same-sex marriage will be forced to choose between full participation in public life and fidelity to their convictions.
So what comes next? An appeal to Ninth Circuit, the most liberal circuit court in America, and an expedited appeal to Supreme Court.
But my hopes are instead in the groundswell of public outrage and resistance. This is re-writing the Constitution of the United States and undermining the most basic institutions of civilized society.
This is why I have signed the Manhattan Declaration. You should come to http://www.manhattandeclaration.org/, and sign on and get your friends to sign on. It's time we took a stand. Millions of us have got to speak up and say, "No, we'll give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, never to Caesar what belongs to God."
And steak and potatoes will remain steak and potatoes.
Which way do I steer for my Cheeseburger in Paradise?
Omnivorously yours,
~Bill
Friday, August 06, 2010
Monday, June 07, 2010
An Apple a Day...
Dear Noshers,
I’ve never been there. It’s the little place across the street from the Diner. Actually, not so little anymore. Once, when both establishments were relatively young, it appeared the Farmer’s Market might even be overwhelmed by the Diner and put out of business. Surprisingly, though, its faithful customer base continued to frequent the location, boast about the quality of the fresh products they could buy, and continue to thrive along with their favorite food haunt. Not that the place has always been the ideal purveyor of healthy foods. At times it has even seemed to share recipes with the management of the Diner. Still, when a business does something good, I want to give them a cheer.
__________________________________________________
In the never-ending battle of the technological titans, score one for Steve Jobs. No, the CEO of Apple hasn't come out with yet another groundbreaking iProduct, at least not since the iPad.
But he's done something even more extraordinary—he's brought good values into the mix.
Jobs has made it clear that he wants to keep pornography off Apple products as much as possible. Obviously Apple can't control everything its users do, but it can make porn scarcer on its products, and it has done just that.
A British newspaper, The Guardian, reports, "So insistent is Apple [on this policy], many magazine publishers developing 'apps' for the new iPad . . . have had to self-censor."
As you might expect, this has triggered a frenzy among some critics. Ryan Tate, a writer for the Gawker website, sniped at Jobs about suppressing his customers' "freedom," prompting Jobs to respond, "Yep, freedom from programs that steal your private data. Freedom from programs that trash your battery. Freedom from porn. Yep, freedom."
When Tate replied that he didn't want "freedom from porn," Jobs answered, "You might care more about porn when you have kids." In a correspondence with a consumer, Jobs went even further, speaking of his company's "moral responsibility to keep porn off the iPhone."
How refreshing it is to see someone who actually gets it—that yes, there are those of us who prefer to be free from the storm of smut that assaults us from every television, computer, and phone screen. The supply of pornographic material is so overwhelming that access to it is certainly not an issue of "freedom" anymore, if it ever was.
Jobs has pointed out that people who want to see porn on their phones, and who want easier access to it on their computers, can easily get all they want if they buy other companies' products. But as he said in a press conference, "That's a place we don't want to go—so we're not going to go there."
What Jobs seems to understand, and what his critics seem to be ignoring, is that there's so much more to pornography than just issues of economics or free speech. It shouldn't even need to be explained, but apparently for some people it does: Pornography is an ugly, poisonous, degrading business for everyone involved, whether they're making it, using it, or selling it.
New studies are demonstrating yet again just how dangerous and addictiveit can be. It tears at the fabric of marriages and families and of society itself. Its use is connected from everything to higher divorce rates to human trafficking to the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.
Aside from the occasional reference to protecting kids (which is enough), Steve Jobs didn't go thoroughly into the reasons for his policy. But for whatever reason, he truly is demonstrating corporate responsibility, the kind that we desperately need more businesses to show in this sex-obsessed society.
May he continue to stand by his principles, and may his tribe increase.
But even if they're good for me, I still won't eat brussels sprouts,
~Bill
I’ve never been there. It’s the little place across the street from the Diner. Actually, not so little anymore. Once, when both establishments were relatively young, it appeared the Farmer’s Market might even be overwhelmed by the Diner and put out of business. Surprisingly, though, its faithful customer base continued to frequent the location, boast about the quality of the fresh products they could buy, and continue to thrive along with their favorite food haunt. Not that the place has always been the ideal purveyor of healthy foods. At times it has even seemed to share recipes with the management of the Diner. Still, when a business does something good, I want to give them a cheer.
__________________________________________________
In the never-ending battle of the technological titans, score one for Steve Jobs. No, the CEO of Apple hasn't come out with yet another groundbreaking iProduct, at least not since the iPad.
But he's done something even more extraordinary—he's brought good values into the mix.
Jobs has made it clear that he wants to keep pornography off Apple products as much as possible. Obviously Apple can't control everything its users do, but it can make porn scarcer on its products, and it has done just that.
A British newspaper, The Guardian, reports, "So insistent is Apple [on this policy], many magazine publishers developing 'apps' for the new iPad . . . have had to self-censor."
As you might expect, this has triggered a frenzy among some critics. Ryan Tate, a writer for the Gawker website, sniped at Jobs about suppressing his customers' "freedom," prompting Jobs to respond, "Yep, freedom from programs that steal your private data. Freedom from programs that trash your battery. Freedom from porn. Yep, freedom."
When Tate replied that he didn't want "freedom from porn," Jobs answered, "You might care more about porn when you have kids." In a correspondence with a consumer, Jobs went even further, speaking of his company's "moral responsibility to keep porn off the iPhone."
How refreshing it is to see someone who actually gets it—that yes, there are those of us who prefer to be free from the storm of smut that assaults us from every television, computer, and phone screen. The supply of pornographic material is so overwhelming that access to it is certainly not an issue of "freedom" anymore, if it ever was.
Jobs has pointed out that people who want to see porn on their phones, and who want easier access to it on their computers, can easily get all they want if they buy other companies' products. But as he said in a press conference, "That's a place we don't want to go—so we're not going to go there."
What Jobs seems to understand, and what his critics seem to be ignoring, is that there's so much more to pornography than just issues of economics or free speech. It shouldn't even need to be explained, but apparently for some people it does: Pornography is an ugly, poisonous, degrading business for everyone involved, whether they're making it, using it, or selling it.
New studies are demonstrating yet again just how dangerous and addictiveit can be. It tears at the fabric of marriages and families and of society itself. Its use is connected from everything to higher divorce rates to human trafficking to the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.
Aside from the occasional reference to protecting kids (which is enough), Steve Jobs didn't go thoroughly into the reasons for his policy. But for whatever reason, he truly is demonstrating corporate responsibility, the kind that we desperately need more businesses to show in this sex-obsessed society.
May he continue to stand by his principles, and may his tribe increase.
But even if they're good for me, I still won't eat brussels sprouts,
~Bill
Friday, January 22, 2010
"Give it to Mikey. He'll eat anything."
Fellow Noshers,
You remember the old commercial for Life cereal, don't you? People still use the old tag line: "Give it to Mikey. He'll eat anything." The thing is, though, we've gotten that line twisted around over the years. Originally, Mikey wouldn't eat anything. He hated everything. That is exactly the reason it was so surprising to the kids at the table, when Mikey gobbled up the Life cereal. It was as though Mikey's tastes had changed, his behavior was completely out of character.
But these days "Mikey" really does eat everything. Unlike the old Mikey, the "grown-up" Mikey does not discriminate. It is easy to understand his change in tastes, really. We know about foods that are an acquired taste. You don't like them at first, but after getting used to them you come to appreciate the distictive flavors and textures.
That's what happens here at the Cultural Diner. Initially, we may not have a taste for anything on the menu. But the Diner seems the only game in town; it's what we have to eat, if we are going to eat. And the first few times we may have to choke it down, but eventually we kind of start to...like it. Or, at least we don't complain anymore if our fellow patrons order it. So now that is what is happening to Christians when they come to the Cultural Diner.
_______________________________________________
Last night I had a disturbing dream. If you are anything like me, it is infrequent that you awake and remember your dreams, and even more infrequent that the dreams are vivid and have something of a storyline. When they do, I try to pay attention.
In my dream a mother had left her young infant propped up in a standing position (thought the infant itself was too young to stand independently) on, of all things, a church pew. She then walked away. Standing several yards from the baby, I was not quick enough to catch the baby before it tumbled to the floor, hitting hard. I looked around for the mother. She was nowhere to be found.
As I picked up the baby, I don't remember it crying, but I do remember it bleeding, profusely from the back of it's head. As I looked down to see the blood pooling on the ground, I was hysterical. And I couldn't find the mother anywhere.
Then, somehow, as dreams go, I was suddenly in the hospital with the baby, frantically searching up and down the hallways for a doctor or a nurse to help. Doctors and nurses loitered and moved about the hospital, completely unmoved by my frantic requests for help. Though I would speak loudly and, with tears thrust the child right in front of them, they would stare with blank and glassy eyes or simply go about their business. No one helped. The infant continued to bleed in my arms. And I knew the child would soon bleed to death.
Obviously, I awoke from the dream quite disturbed. Somehow, on the day of the 37th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, I can't help but think that the dream is symbolic of the public malaise on the issue of abortion. As I frantically searched for help and saw a helpless infant bleeding to death before my eyes, the real eeriness of the dream was in the absolute non-responsiveness of the crowd, the normalcy with which they continued to carry on their business.
______________________________________________
Undoubtedly many of the great evils of our times have been committed because the cries of the victims were not heard--not heard by those who sat by, comfortably ignorant of the horrors around them.
Today, there are victims whose cries of agony our ears will never hear. These are the unborn victims of abortion.
These things are uncomfortable to hear and to speak about. That is precisely the point. We should not be comfortable in a society where such crimes exist and where we would have the power to influence change, were our tastebuds not desensitized.
Were the owners of the Cultural Diner required to post labels and nutritional information on "choices" like abortion, as restaurants are legislated to do, perhaps the knowledge would shake us from the complacence of our booths.
Maybe we would at least fill out the comment cards.
The sign should read, "Millions and millions served."
Your Friendly, Neighborhood Food Critic,
~Bill
P.S. The patron who first ordered this dish, Norma Jane McCorvey, aka Jane Roe, has since become Roman Catholic and is a strong opponent of abortion. Pray with me that she receives God's mercy and still feels His love.
You remember the old commercial for Life cereal, don't you? People still use the old tag line: "Give it to Mikey. He'll eat anything." The thing is, though, we've gotten that line twisted around over the years. Originally, Mikey wouldn't eat anything. He hated everything. That is exactly the reason it was so surprising to the kids at the table, when Mikey gobbled up the Life cereal. It was as though Mikey's tastes had changed, his behavior was completely out of character.
But these days "Mikey" really does eat everything. Unlike the old Mikey, the "grown-up" Mikey does not discriminate. It is easy to understand his change in tastes, really. We know about foods that are an acquired taste. You don't like them at first, but after getting used to them you come to appreciate the distictive flavors and textures.
That's what happens here at the Cultural Diner. Initially, we may not have a taste for anything on the menu. But the Diner seems the only game in town; it's what we have to eat, if we are going to eat. And the first few times we may have to choke it down, but eventually we kind of start to...like it. Or, at least we don't complain anymore if our fellow patrons order it. So now that is what is happening to Christians when they come to the Cultural Diner.
_______________________________________________
Last night I had a disturbing dream. If you are anything like me, it is infrequent that you awake and remember your dreams, and even more infrequent that the dreams are vivid and have something of a storyline. When they do, I try to pay attention.
In my dream a mother had left her young infant propped up in a standing position (thought the infant itself was too young to stand independently) on, of all things, a church pew. She then walked away. Standing several yards from the baby, I was not quick enough to catch the baby before it tumbled to the floor, hitting hard. I looked around for the mother. She was nowhere to be found.
As I picked up the baby, I don't remember it crying, but I do remember it bleeding, profusely from the back of it's head. As I looked down to see the blood pooling on the ground, I was hysterical. And I couldn't find the mother anywhere.
Then, somehow, as dreams go, I was suddenly in the hospital with the baby, frantically searching up and down the hallways for a doctor or a nurse to help. Doctors and nurses loitered and moved about the hospital, completely unmoved by my frantic requests for help. Though I would speak loudly and, with tears thrust the child right in front of them, they would stare with blank and glassy eyes or simply go about their business. No one helped. The infant continued to bleed in my arms. And I knew the child would soon bleed to death.
Obviously, I awoke from the dream quite disturbed. Somehow, on the day of the 37th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, I can't help but think that the dream is symbolic of the public malaise on the issue of abortion. As I frantically searched for help and saw a helpless infant bleeding to death before my eyes, the real eeriness of the dream was in the absolute non-responsiveness of the crowd, the normalcy with which they continued to carry on their business.
______________________________________________
Undoubtedly many of the great evils of our times have been committed because the cries of the victims were not heard--not heard by those who sat by, comfortably ignorant of the horrors around them.
Today, there are victims whose cries of agony our ears will never hear. These are the unborn victims of abortion.
These things are uncomfortable to hear and to speak about. That is precisely the point. We should not be comfortable in a society where such crimes exist and where we would have the power to influence change, were our tastebuds not desensitized.
Were the owners of the Cultural Diner required to post labels and nutritional information on "choices" like abortion, as restaurants are legislated to do, perhaps the knowledge would shake us from the complacence of our booths.
Maybe we would at least fill out the comment cards.
The sign should read, "Millions and millions served."
Your Friendly, Neighborhood Food Critic,
~Bill
P.S. The patron who first ordered this dish, Norma Jane McCorvey, aka Jane Roe, has since become Roman Catholic and is a strong opponent of abortion. Pray with me that she receives God's mercy and still feels His love.
Friday, December 18, 2009
The Lion, the Witch, the Grand Canyon, and Christmas
One thing that stands out to me about C. S. Lewis' book, The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe is the way Narnia changed because of the coming of Aslan. Remember? Prior to his arrival Narnia was a cold place, a dark place, a place where it was always winter yet never Christmas.
But after Aslan's coming, Christmas returns, and shortly thereafter, Spring arrives, the snow and ice melts, rivers start to flow and everything begins to bloom again. Birds sing, skies are blue, the days lengthen and warm. The wicked queen is vanquished and the four children sit on the thrones of their castle at Cair Paravel.
Aslan's coming changed so much about the world of Narnia. But Aslan's coming pales in comparison...
Think of the difference the day Jesus Christ was born, Christmas day, made!!! Christ's influence on the world was immeasurable. The story of Christ's birth is a story of promise, hope, and a revolutionary love. So, what happened? What was once a time to celebrate the birth of a savior has somehow turned into a season of stress, traffic jams, and shopping lists. And when it's all over, many of us are left with presents to return, looming debt that will take months to pay off, and an empty feeling of missed purpose. Is this what we really want out of Christmas?
What if Christmas became a world-changing event again?
I think of the old pioneer who was travelling westward across the southern part of our great country. One day he came to an abrupt halt at the edge of the Grand Canyon. He stared, unbelievingly at the sight before him: a vast chasm one mile deep, eighteen miles wide, and stretching left and right farther than the eye could see! He gasped, “Something must have happened here!” What if, a stranger to Christmas, came upon our celebrations and observed our lives? Would that stranger gasp and say to themselves ”Something must have happened here!”? And would that something be something that changed the world?
We Catholic Americans lament the loss of a religious “Merry Christmas” to the lowest-common-denominator “Happy Holidays” as a greeting at this time of year. We may be disappointed when some forgo the expressions “B.C.” (Before Christ) and “A.D.” (Anno Domini—In the year of our Lord) in favor of “C.E.” (Common Era) and “B.C.E.” (Before the Common Era). We find the diminishing influence of Catholic values in American society disconcerting. Many are angered at the removal of the manger scene from public property.
I have come to wonder at the same time whether or not it also represents a kind of seismic shift in the foundations of our lives as Church. Have we Christians begun to cease reckoning time and history on the basis of the birth of Jesus? After all, have we not long since ignored what Jesus taught? What is the point of pretending that his birth is the center of history, if his teaching, particularly his teaching of non-violent, active love of friends and enemies, fails to occupy a central place in our lives, both individually or communally?
And yet, the point that I am trying to make is that something definitive, irrevocable, and extraordinary did happen on that night in Bethlehem. Human history is divided into time "before Christ" and time since his coming, and, we believe, history itself will come to an end with his second coming. The Incarnation is the critical point upon which the entire human story is bent, as a door opens and closes upon its hinges.
Do we Catholics continue to live with the same old fears that have haunted humanity from the beginning; have we have ceased to reckon our history from the perspective of the birth of Jesus Christ? Is it any longer the unique, decisive moment in human history for us and for the world, the moment in which everything changed once and for all? Our witness to hope and against fear has faltered. As a consequence, the rest of humanity is able to put Jesus on the shelf alongside other gods and heroes in its pantheon of powerless deities. And Christmas becomes just another of the "happy holidays" among all the others observed around the world.
Perhaps, however, Christmas can be different again, and perhaps we can make it so. We can make the difference of Christmas apparent to the world around us, to those whose lives touch ours. In order to do this, we do not have to join the chorus of voices that demand that Christmas and the Church be restored to the place of privilege and prestige that it had in American culture at one time. Still less are we under a divine calling to spend like crazy, as if the nation's economic recovery depended on whether or not we buy that flat-screen TV for Christmas. Nor does it do any good to lament the diminishing influence of Christian values in society, as if it were society's fault that the Gospel finds less and less of a place in it.
On the contrary, it seems to me more of the blame for that can be can be found in the fact that we, who know that we are called to become Love, cannot even cease waging war, practicing torture, divorcing, and aborting our children at about the same rate as non-believers, and committing the myriads of acts of violence and cruelty that spring from our own nature and fears. The fact that we sometimes attempt to justify it in the name of Jesus only serves to render him less credible to people everywhere.
Ultimately, it makes no difference to the Catholic Christian whether the world sees in the infant Jesus the source of all that is. It makes no difference to the Catholic Christian whether the world reckons its history from the unexpected miracle of His birth. It makes all the difference in - and to - the world, that you do, however.
To this end, may the Divine Presence be yours this Christmas Day.
But after Aslan's coming, Christmas returns, and shortly thereafter, Spring arrives, the snow and ice melts, rivers start to flow and everything begins to bloom again. Birds sing, skies are blue, the days lengthen and warm. The wicked queen is vanquished and the four children sit on the thrones of their castle at Cair Paravel.
Aslan's coming changed so much about the world of Narnia. But Aslan's coming pales in comparison...
Think of the difference the day Jesus Christ was born, Christmas day, made!!! Christ's influence on the world was immeasurable. The story of Christ's birth is a story of promise, hope, and a revolutionary love. So, what happened? What was once a time to celebrate the birth of a savior has somehow turned into a season of stress, traffic jams, and shopping lists. And when it's all over, many of us are left with presents to return, looming debt that will take months to pay off, and an empty feeling of missed purpose. Is this what we really want out of Christmas?
What if Christmas became a world-changing event again?
I think of the old pioneer who was travelling westward across the southern part of our great country. One day he came to an abrupt halt at the edge of the Grand Canyon. He stared, unbelievingly at the sight before him: a vast chasm one mile deep, eighteen miles wide, and stretching left and right farther than the eye could see! He gasped, “Something must have happened here!” What if, a stranger to Christmas, came upon our celebrations and observed our lives? Would that stranger gasp and say to themselves ”Something must have happened here!”? And would that something be something that changed the world?
We Catholic Americans lament the loss of a religious “Merry Christmas” to the lowest-common-denominator “Happy Holidays” as a greeting at this time of year. We may be disappointed when some forgo the expressions “B.C.” (Before Christ) and “A.D.” (Anno Domini—In the year of our Lord) in favor of “C.E.” (Common Era) and “B.C.E.” (Before the Common Era). We find the diminishing influence of Catholic values in American society disconcerting. Many are angered at the removal of the manger scene from public property.
I have come to wonder at the same time whether or not it also represents a kind of seismic shift in the foundations of our lives as Church. Have we Christians begun to cease reckoning time and history on the basis of the birth of Jesus? After all, have we not long since ignored what Jesus taught? What is the point of pretending that his birth is the center of history, if his teaching, particularly his teaching of non-violent, active love of friends and enemies, fails to occupy a central place in our lives, both individually or communally?
And yet, the point that I am trying to make is that something definitive, irrevocable, and extraordinary did happen on that night in Bethlehem. Human history is divided into time "before Christ" and time since his coming, and, we believe, history itself will come to an end with his second coming. The Incarnation is the critical point upon which the entire human story is bent, as a door opens and closes upon its hinges.
Do we Catholics continue to live with the same old fears that have haunted humanity from the beginning; have we have ceased to reckon our history from the perspective of the birth of Jesus Christ? Is it any longer the unique, decisive moment in human history for us and for the world, the moment in which everything changed once and for all? Our witness to hope and against fear has faltered. As a consequence, the rest of humanity is able to put Jesus on the shelf alongside other gods and heroes in its pantheon of powerless deities. And Christmas becomes just another of the "happy holidays" among all the others observed around the world.
Perhaps, however, Christmas can be different again, and perhaps we can make it so. We can make the difference of Christmas apparent to the world around us, to those whose lives touch ours. In order to do this, we do not have to join the chorus of voices that demand that Christmas and the Church be restored to the place of privilege and prestige that it had in American culture at one time. Still less are we under a divine calling to spend like crazy, as if the nation's economic recovery depended on whether or not we buy that flat-screen TV for Christmas. Nor does it do any good to lament the diminishing influence of Christian values in society, as if it were society's fault that the Gospel finds less and less of a place in it.
On the contrary, it seems to me more of the blame for that can be can be found in the fact that we, who know that we are called to become Love, cannot even cease waging war, practicing torture, divorcing, and aborting our children at about the same rate as non-believers, and committing the myriads of acts of violence and cruelty that spring from our own nature and fears. The fact that we sometimes attempt to justify it in the name of Jesus only serves to render him less credible to people everywhere.
Ultimately, it makes no difference to the Catholic Christian whether the world sees in the infant Jesus the source of all that is. It makes no difference to the Catholic Christian whether the world reckons its history from the unexpected miracle of His birth. It makes all the difference in - and to - the world, that you do, however.
To this end, may the Divine Presence be yours this Christmas Day.
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
This year I've just gotta start eating healthy...
In those days John the Baptist came preaching in the wilderness of Judea, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” (Matthew 3:1,2)
Fellow Diners,
I'm just not going to go there anymore. But I'm probably not going to go there any less, either.
You know where I'm talking about: The Cultural Diner, of course. My mental, emotional, spiritual, and physical health would certainly be a lot better if I could give up the regular table reserved for me. I want to improve my health, so this should be sufficient motivation to do it. Going cold turkey shouldn't be so bad. I can handle it...
First, I'll just turn off "The Bob and Tom Show" in the car on the way to work. Then I'll make Bible.com my home page, instead of MSN.com. Pass by all those People magazines in the waiting room. Newspaper, in the trash. No more Thursday appointments with "Survivor". No idolizing the "Idol". TV in general, out. The movies, out. Talk radio, out. Gossip, out. Brangelina and the Golden Globe's Best Dressed list, out. (Well, maybe I can make a little room for Angelina!).
Then the healthy stuff: Prayer, Bible study, other spiritual disciplines to fill the pantry and regrigerator. Exercise, plenty of rest, more time with the family, waiting on the cupboard shelf.
Aaah! This year is gonna be so good!
______________________________________
Probably a good many people in this fair land made sweeping resolutions for the New Year. Maybe even you did. Those resolutions will no doubt cover a broad spectrum of topics: lose some weight, get in shape, find a new job, learn a new subject, spend more time with my family, and so forth.
But there’s one subject I’ll wager very few of us have included in the list of things we resolve to do in the year to come. Repentance. “I resolve to repent of my self-centeredness.” “This year I’m going to stop lying to cover my backside.” “My New Year’s resolution is to give up always trying to be the center of attention and show a little more consideration for the people around me.”
Just doesn’t happen, does it? People simply are not given to repenting. And there are some good reasons for this. The first is that sin is our natural habitat. We are born into this world sinful and self-centered. It’s part of the original factory equipment of every human being. We spend all our childhood basically perfecting the skills of selfishness that, in adulthood, start making us inconsiderate, boorish, and mean. It’s so convenient just to be myself. It feels so right. Why try to go against my very nature?
There is a second reason that repentance is not high on most people’s list of things to do: sin can be downright pleasurable. We enjoy sinning. Delight in it. Try to get away with as much of it as we can, because, doggone it, sin is fun! Who’s going to give up all the fun that comes with those little flirtations, that carefully placed gossip, those indiscretions of this or that kind, that mean spirit that makes everyone cower in our presence, those exaggerations that easily bleed into lies? What’s wrong with a little fun? No harm, no foul. We simply like to sin. Repent? What will you offer me to replace the fun I’ll be giving up?
The third reason repentance is so unpopular today is because to repent means to admit wrong. If I’m going to repent from something then I have to admit I’m doing something wrong. I’ve made a mistake. I may have done a bad thing, or, heaven help me, actually be a bad person. In our “I’m OK, you’re OK” culture, we don’t want anyone to feel bad about himself, no matter what he does. Even in our churches we don’t like to talk about repentance, because we want people to be smothered in “feel-good-about-me-ness” when they’re in our midst, so they’ll be sure to come back next week.
So how’s this for a resolution—New Year’s or any time: Repent, for the kingdom of Heaven is at hand. You'll not likely practice the discipline of repentance if you're ignorant of the law of God. You'll not likely practice healthy eating if the health food store doesn't advertise and educate.
Finally, you will be greatly aided in your practice of repentance by maintaining some kind of accountability. Be willing to be confronted, rebuked, and corrected by those who love you, and you’re on your way to a fruitful life of repentance, and a healthy meal at the wedding banquet. Share your needs for repentance with those who love you; seek their prayers and support. Repentance will become more a part of your life in the kingdom of God if you have a diet buddy to help you along the way.
For reflection: How could society be different if our churches were more faithful in teaching about repentance?
Cultural Nurse-in-Training,
~Bill
As John the Baptist said, "Bear fruit in keeping with repentance." Matt.3:8.
Fellow Diners,
I'm just not going to go there anymore. But I'm probably not going to go there any less, either.
You know where I'm talking about: The Cultural Diner, of course. My mental, emotional, spiritual, and physical health would certainly be a lot better if I could give up the regular table reserved for me. I want to improve my health, so this should be sufficient motivation to do it. Going cold turkey shouldn't be so bad. I can handle it...
First, I'll just turn off "The Bob and Tom Show" in the car on the way to work. Then I'll make Bible.com my home page, instead of MSN.com. Pass by all those People magazines in the waiting room. Newspaper, in the trash. No more Thursday appointments with "Survivor". No idolizing the "Idol". TV in general, out. The movies, out. Talk radio, out. Gossip, out. Brangelina and the Golden Globe's Best Dressed list, out. (Well, maybe I can make a little room for Angelina!).
Then the healthy stuff: Prayer, Bible study, other spiritual disciplines to fill the pantry and regrigerator. Exercise, plenty of rest, more time with the family, waiting on the cupboard shelf.
Aaah! This year is gonna be so good!
______________________________________
Probably a good many people in this fair land made sweeping resolutions for the New Year. Maybe even you did. Those resolutions will no doubt cover a broad spectrum of topics: lose some weight, get in shape, find a new job, learn a new subject, spend more time with my family, and so forth.
But there’s one subject I’ll wager very few of us have included in the list of things we resolve to do in the year to come. Repentance. “I resolve to repent of my self-centeredness.” “This year I’m going to stop lying to cover my backside.” “My New Year’s resolution is to give up always trying to be the center of attention and show a little more consideration for the people around me.”
Just doesn’t happen, does it? People simply are not given to repenting. And there are some good reasons for this. The first is that sin is our natural habitat. We are born into this world sinful and self-centered. It’s part of the original factory equipment of every human being. We spend all our childhood basically perfecting the skills of selfishness that, in adulthood, start making us inconsiderate, boorish, and mean. It’s so convenient just to be myself. It feels so right. Why try to go against my very nature?
There is a second reason that repentance is not high on most people’s list of things to do: sin can be downright pleasurable. We enjoy sinning. Delight in it. Try to get away with as much of it as we can, because, doggone it, sin is fun! Who’s going to give up all the fun that comes with those little flirtations, that carefully placed gossip, those indiscretions of this or that kind, that mean spirit that makes everyone cower in our presence, those exaggerations that easily bleed into lies? What’s wrong with a little fun? No harm, no foul. We simply like to sin. Repent? What will you offer me to replace the fun I’ll be giving up?
The third reason repentance is so unpopular today is because to repent means to admit wrong. If I’m going to repent from something then I have to admit I’m doing something wrong. I’ve made a mistake. I may have done a bad thing, or, heaven help me, actually be a bad person. In our “I’m OK, you’re OK” culture, we don’t want anyone to feel bad about himself, no matter what he does. Even in our churches we don’t like to talk about repentance, because we want people to be smothered in “feel-good-about-me-ness” when they’re in our midst, so they’ll be sure to come back next week.
So how’s this for a resolution—New Year’s or any time: Repent, for the kingdom of Heaven is at hand. You'll not likely practice the discipline of repentance if you're ignorant of the law of God. You'll not likely practice healthy eating if the health food store doesn't advertise and educate.
Finally, you will be greatly aided in your practice of repentance by maintaining some kind of accountability. Be willing to be confronted, rebuked, and corrected by those who love you, and you’re on your way to a fruitful life of repentance, and a healthy meal at the wedding banquet. Share your needs for repentance with those who love you; seek their prayers and support. Repentance will become more a part of your life in the kingdom of God if you have a diet buddy to help you along the way.
For reflection: How could society be different if our churches were more faithful in teaching about repentance?
Cultural Nurse-in-Training,
~Bill
As John the Baptist said, "Bear fruit in keeping with repentance." Matt.3:8.
Sunday, October 05, 2008
How do you eat an elephant?
Answer: One bite at a time.
Fellow Noshers,
As I watched the other customers' order being delivered, my appetite really revved up. Sizzling plates, delightful aromas, silverware clinking greedily on their plates...
That's why I was so disappointed when the waitress got to my table. I tore into the steak before she had a chance to walk away...and it was COLD!
"Excuse me, miss, but this steak is cold."
"That's okay, sir. Usually people like their steak hot, but it's okay if you want it to be cold. We don't mind here."
"But, it really is cold. I'm not making this up. I don't want it cold."
"If you don't want it cold, then just drink some ice water. The difference in the two will make the steak hotter. Glad I could help, let me know if you need anything else."
So there I sat, not knowing what to think. Was I really the reason the steak was cold? ________________________________________
Try a little experiment: Next time you grow weary of the vapid chatter about the price of gas, the latest guest on Oprah, Trump and Rosie, and the merits of cable versus the Dish, try this the next time you’re in a social setting: Ask, “Who believes in truth?” After the room revives from the dead skunk you’ve tossed on the carpet, continue, “No, really; who believes that truth exists and that it is knowable?”
(In my experience, whether you do this with co-workers, neighbors, or church members, the conversation will proceed something like this:)
"You’re talking about absolute truth?"
Yeah, that’s what I mean.
Depends on what?
"On your viewpoint. Have you seen that sketch—the one that looks like a hag or a beautiful girl."
Yeah.
"Well, which is it—a picture of a girl or a hag?"
"Exactly! It all depends".
Can we get off this gerbil run? Depends on what?
"Okay. We’re all products of nature and nurture which causes us to see things differently. As to the sketch—I may see a hag, but that gives me no right to claim that it is a hag, or that others are wrong if they see something else. In the end, who’s to say what it is, or if it’s anything but a poor artist’s scribbling?"
The responder reflects the prevailing sentiment of the day: truth is not an objective, overarching statement about reality; it is personal perception shaped by our genetic makeup and experience. Among sophisticates and intelligentsia, such relativistic thinking is all the rage. Yet few realize that their fashionable ideas are really quite old.
Like the modern-day hag/girl drawing, a favorite illustration of yore was the parable of the wind: One person feels the wind as cold, while another feels it as warm. And since the wind can’t be both warm and cold, it’s the individual--not external reality--that determines its properties. In fact, maybe it’s the individual that determines the very existence of the wind.
Maybe.
Relativity theory and quantum theory form the backbone of modern relativism. Together, they validate the “truth” about truth that the Eastern mystics had been telling us all along: objective truth is an illusion.
Then East met West in “The Blind Men and the Elephant.” In the famous fable, six blind investigators examined different parts of a pachyderm to conclude that it is like a tree, a rope, a wall, a branch, a fan, a spear. The lesson? They were all right. The application? We, too, are blind men with no privileged position to judge the perspectives of others. The conclusion? If all we have are the experiences of our diverse fumbling in the dark, practically speaking, there is no elephant!
But if truth cannot be discovered and, in fact, does not exist, it is our creation.
Even better than creating the new "truth", are the reasons we've created for giving up on the old "truth": “We don’t know the whole truth” (So I guess we just make something up?); “It’s good to raise questions” (Maybe we should also question whether 2 plus 2 really equals 4?); “It stimulates critical thinking” (About as much as wasting thought on Holocaust denial theories). But my personal favorite, the American Bandstand answer, is: “It's a catchy, hip idea, with a cool soundtrack.” That oughta do it.
Resist the siren song of the modern-day Relativists: Truth is independent of us. Truth is true regardless of our perceptions or beliefs no matter how sincerely we hold them. Neither is it something we invent. To paraphrase C.S. Lewis, “We can no more create truth than we can create a new law of nature, like the law of gravity.”
Busy creating my own truth,
Your Friendly Neighborhood Infidel,
~Bill
Fellow Noshers,
As I watched the other customers' order being delivered, my appetite really revved up. Sizzling plates, delightful aromas, silverware clinking greedily on their plates...
That's why I was so disappointed when the waitress got to my table. I tore into the steak before she had a chance to walk away...and it was COLD!
"Excuse me, miss, but this steak is cold."
"That's okay, sir. Usually people like their steak hot, but it's okay if you want it to be cold. We don't mind here."
"But, it really is cold. I'm not making this up. I don't want it cold."
"If you don't want it cold, then just drink some ice water. The difference in the two will make the steak hotter. Glad I could help, let me know if you need anything else."
So there I sat, not knowing what to think. Was I really the reason the steak was cold? ________________________________________
Try a little experiment: Next time you grow weary of the vapid chatter about the price of gas, the latest guest on Oprah, Trump and Rosie, and the merits of cable versus the Dish, try this the next time you’re in a social setting: Ask, “Who believes in truth?” After the room revives from the dead skunk you’ve tossed on the carpet, continue, “No, really; who believes that truth exists and that it is knowable?”
(In my experience, whether you do this with co-workers, neighbors, or church members, the conversation will proceed something like this:)
"You’re talking about absolute truth?"
Yeah, that’s what I mean.
Depends on what?
"On your viewpoint. Have you seen that sketch—the one that looks like a hag or a beautiful girl."
Yeah.
"Well, which is it—a picture of a girl or a hag?"
"Exactly! It all depends".
Can we get off this gerbil run? Depends on what?
"Okay. We’re all products of nature and nurture which causes us to see things differently. As to the sketch—I may see a hag, but that gives me no right to claim that it is a hag, or that others are wrong if they see something else. In the end, who’s to say what it is, or if it’s anything but a poor artist’s scribbling?"
The responder reflects the prevailing sentiment of the day: truth is not an objective, overarching statement about reality; it is personal perception shaped by our genetic makeup and experience. Among sophisticates and intelligentsia, such relativistic thinking is all the rage. Yet few realize that their fashionable ideas are really quite old.
Like the modern-day hag/girl drawing, a favorite illustration of yore was the parable of the wind: One person feels the wind as cold, while another feels it as warm. And since the wind can’t be both warm and cold, it’s the individual--not external reality--that determines its properties. In fact, maybe it’s the individual that determines the very existence of the wind.
Maybe.
Relativity theory and quantum theory form the backbone of modern relativism. Together, they validate the “truth” about truth that the Eastern mystics had been telling us all along: objective truth is an illusion.
Then East met West in “The Blind Men and the Elephant.” In the famous fable, six blind investigators examined different parts of a pachyderm to conclude that it is like a tree, a rope, a wall, a branch, a fan, a spear. The lesson? They were all right. The application? We, too, are blind men with no privileged position to judge the perspectives of others. The conclusion? If all we have are the experiences of our diverse fumbling in the dark, practically speaking, there is no elephant!
But if truth cannot be discovered and, in fact, does not exist, it is our creation.
Even better than creating the new "truth", are the reasons we've created for giving up on the old "truth": “We don’t know the whole truth” (So I guess we just make something up?); “It’s good to raise questions” (Maybe we should also question whether 2 plus 2 really equals 4?); “It stimulates critical thinking” (About as much as wasting thought on Holocaust denial theories). But my personal favorite, the American Bandstand answer, is: “It's a catchy, hip idea, with a cool soundtrack.” That oughta do it.
Resist the siren song of the modern-day Relativists: Truth is independent of us. Truth is true regardless of our perceptions or beliefs no matter how sincerely we hold them. Neither is it something we invent. To paraphrase C.S. Lewis, “We can no more create truth than we can create a new law of nature, like the law of gravity.”
Busy creating my own truth,
Your Friendly Neighborhood Infidel,
~Bill
You can pick your friends, you can pick your nose...
The old joke ends,"But Dr. we really need the eggs."
Fellow Diners,
Well, it may finally be time to send for the guys with the white coats to wrap me up and cart me off. (I know, I know...)
It had been a while. Probably a month or so since I'd last visited the Diner, and that's just wrong. Not only did it feel good to get back in here, in a way it is good, for the body and the soul. In the same way our immune system needs exposure to pathogens to generate and maintain resistance, so our value system requires the occasional irritation or poke in order to remain strong and vigilant. But this didn't strike me as right.
The service is normally superb here. They bring you anything you want, and I mean anything. Don't misunderstand; the staff here knows the meaning of suggestive selling. In fact, they invented it. This time was different, though.
I ordered the chicken. So you would expect, they bring me the chicken, right? The waitress smiles, calls me "Hon'", refills my drink, and unveils a plate full of...roast beef!? Not wanting to be rude, I say this must be a mistake, I ordered the chicken. And what do you think she tells me? Most minimum wage servers working for a big tip would be right on that one, whipping the incorrect meal back to the kitchen, returning with the right vittles and an apology for the inconvenience. So imagine my surprise.
"No, that's right sir. I know it looks like roast beef. But the chef really wanted it to be chicken. In fact, the whole time he was cooking it, he kept thinking that it was chicken. So now, it must be chicken."
Hmmm. Times they are a changin'.
___________________________
It used to be, in the old days, that the biggest decision new parents had to make was the name of their baby. The one thing they didn’t have to decide was the kid’s sex—that decision had been made for them, all they have to do is take a peek. That would be that.
Well, not any more, at least not in New York City. You see, under a proposed Board of Health rule, “people born in the city would be able to change the documented sex on their birth certificates.” They would need only to provide “affidavits from a doctor and a mental health professional laying out why their patients should be considered members of the opposite sex.” They would also have to promise that “their proposed change would be permanent.”
The proposed rule isn’t aimed at people who have had “sex-change surgery.” They are already permitted to do this. Instead, it’s directed at people who “had lived in their adopted gender for at least two years . . . ”
Read those words carefully: adopted and especially gender, instead of sex. It is a big hint that there’s some major postmodern mischief at work here. “Sex” is what scientists call “binary”: You either have an XX (that is, female) or an XY (that is, male) chromosome.
But, if nature can’t be twisted and shaped to suit our ideological predilections, words, especially in the hands of postmodern vandals, can be. If the goal is to separate anatomy from what it means to be a man or a woman, then the use of the word gender is a must.
You see, transgender activists can get away with saying that gender is just “socially constructed” and more than “the sum of one’s physical parts” because gender is a word that most people don’t regularly use. Substituting an obscure word, in this case, gender, for the more common one, sex, is intended to confuse and obscure. It’s the kind of verbal tactic George Orwell would be proud of, akin to a squid squirting ink to confuse its predators.
Of course, what makes this squirting necessary is the denial of the obvious: “Living as a woman,” whatever that means, no more makes you a woman than hiding a pot of gold makes you a leprechaun.
These verbal parlor games may wow them in the faculty lounge or the counter seat at the Diner, but nature is unimpressed. They remind me of the hoax perpetrated by physicist Alan Sokal. He submitted a paper to a leading postmodern journal filled with postmodern gibberish like “physical ‘reality’ and physics. . . is at bottom a social and linguistic construct.”
After the paper was published, he revealed the hoax, that it was all gibberish, adding that those who believe that physics really is a “social construct” should test their beliefs from his twenty-first floor window.
Christians should not be shocked at any of this. Romans 1 tells us that God’s truth is made plain in creation, and to deny this truth—in this case, “male and female created He them”—is to exchange the truth for lie, which Paul illustrates by an example of men lying with men, in other words, rejecting their God-given gender, which is a challenge to God’s created order. Well, today we have renewed that old lie—that we can create ourselves the way we want, and peeking doesn’t make any difference.
I don't know what I just ordered. Do you?
Your Friendly Neighborhood, Puzzled, Still Hungry but Willing to Give Them Another Chance, Because I'll be Hungry again, Maybe I Should Just Shut Up and Eat What They Give Me, Apatheist,
~Bill
The NY Times covered this all very well Nov. 7, 2006.
Fellow Diners,
Well, it may finally be time to send for the guys with the white coats to wrap me up and cart me off. (I know, I know...)
It had been a while. Probably a month or so since I'd last visited the Diner, and that's just wrong. Not only did it feel good to get back in here, in a way it is good, for the body and the soul. In the same way our immune system needs exposure to pathogens to generate and maintain resistance, so our value system requires the occasional irritation or poke in order to remain strong and vigilant. But this didn't strike me as right.
The service is normally superb here. They bring you anything you want, and I mean anything. Don't misunderstand; the staff here knows the meaning of suggestive selling. In fact, they invented it. This time was different, though.
I ordered the chicken. So you would expect, they bring me the chicken, right? The waitress smiles, calls me "Hon'", refills my drink, and unveils a plate full of...roast beef!? Not wanting to be rude, I say this must be a mistake, I ordered the chicken. And what do you think she tells me? Most minimum wage servers working for a big tip would be right on that one, whipping the incorrect meal back to the kitchen, returning with the right vittles and an apology for the inconvenience. So imagine my surprise.
"No, that's right sir. I know it looks like roast beef. But the chef really wanted it to be chicken. In fact, the whole time he was cooking it, he kept thinking that it was chicken. So now, it must be chicken."
Hmmm. Times they are a changin'.
___________________________
It used to be, in the old days, that the biggest decision new parents had to make was the name of their baby. The one thing they didn’t have to decide was the kid’s sex—that decision had been made for them, all they have to do is take a peek. That would be that.
Well, not any more, at least not in New York City. You see, under a proposed Board of Health rule, “people born in the city would be able to change the documented sex on their birth certificates.” They would need only to provide “affidavits from a doctor and a mental health professional laying out why their patients should be considered members of the opposite sex.” They would also have to promise that “their proposed change would be permanent.”
The proposed rule isn’t aimed at people who have had “sex-change surgery.” They are already permitted to do this. Instead, it’s directed at people who “had lived in their adopted gender for at least two years . . . ”
Read those words carefully: adopted and especially gender, instead of sex. It is a big hint that there’s some major postmodern mischief at work here. “Sex” is what scientists call “binary”: You either have an XX (that is, female) or an XY (that is, male) chromosome.
But, if nature can’t be twisted and shaped to suit our ideological predilections, words, especially in the hands of postmodern vandals, can be. If the goal is to separate anatomy from what it means to be a man or a woman, then the use of the word gender is a must.
You see, transgender activists can get away with saying that gender is just “socially constructed” and more than “the sum of one’s physical parts” because gender is a word that most people don’t regularly use. Substituting an obscure word, in this case, gender, for the more common one, sex, is intended to confuse and obscure. It’s the kind of verbal tactic George Orwell would be proud of, akin to a squid squirting ink to confuse its predators.
Of course, what makes this squirting necessary is the denial of the obvious: “Living as a woman,” whatever that means, no more makes you a woman than hiding a pot of gold makes you a leprechaun.
These verbal parlor games may wow them in the faculty lounge or the counter seat at the Diner, but nature is unimpressed. They remind me of the hoax perpetrated by physicist Alan Sokal. He submitted a paper to a leading postmodern journal filled with postmodern gibberish like “physical ‘reality’ and physics. . . is at bottom a social and linguistic construct.”
After the paper was published, he revealed the hoax, that it was all gibberish, adding that those who believe that physics really is a “social construct” should test their beliefs from his twenty-first floor window.
Christians should not be shocked at any of this. Romans 1 tells us that God’s truth is made plain in creation, and to deny this truth—in this case, “male and female created He them”—is to exchange the truth for lie, which Paul illustrates by an example of men lying with men, in other words, rejecting their God-given gender, which is a challenge to God’s created order. Well, today we have renewed that old lie—that we can create ourselves the way we want, and peeking doesn’t make any difference.
I don't know what I just ordered. Do you?
Your Friendly Neighborhood, Puzzled, Still Hungry but Willing to Give Them Another Chance, Because I'll be Hungry again, Maybe I Should Just Shut Up and Eat What They Give Me, Apatheist,
~Bill
The NY Times covered this all very well Nov. 7, 2006.
We Reserve the Right to Refuse Service...
Faithful readers,
You've seen the signs, right?
I don't mean the "No shirt, no shoes, no service" ones. Those are right at the front entrance, and are placed at the order of the Health Department. Those are for the good of everybody.
I mean those little signs, behind the counter. They read something like this: "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, at anytime, for anything." Ostensibly, they mean to let you know that if you are going to act like a jerk, you run the risk of being "86-ed". (Anyone know where that term came from?). But tell me, in a multi-cultural melting pot as America claims to be, don't those signs sound slightly discriminatory?
I made a mistake the other day at the Diner. Normally, I think of this as a place I can go to get away and just be myself. After all, everything and everybody is supposed to be tolerated, accepted and loved here at the Diner. And so it may be, except for...those who criticize the menu.
When the server listed the specials of the day, I said,"Oh my gosh, no I don't want that! Don't you know that stuff will kill you?" Immediately, the management gave me the opportunity to eat somewhere else for the evening. The shame of being kicked out of the Diner! In effect, they said my money was no good there, and neither was I.
----------
Were the Nazis wrong to murder millions of Jews? Is it wrong to practice human sacrifice? These questions may seem like obvious no-brainers. But prepare yourself for a shock. Many young people today consider genocide, human sacrifice, abortion, murder, and suicide open questions. (Does anyone remember the story The Lottery?)
Lately teachers have noticed a troubling trend: Up to 20 percent of students are unwilling to say that mass murder is immoral. Oh, they usually say they disapprove of what the Nazis did—but they consider this merely their own personal taste. "Of course I dislike the Nazis," a student may say. "But who is to say they were morally wrong?"
This moral malady is not new, but let's give it a name-- "absolutophobia"--the fear of making absolute moral judgments.
How did we reach a point where young people refuse to condemn mass murder and human sacrifice? The answer is that, as children, these kids were spoon-fed moral relativism along with their Gerber and their ABCs.
In grade school, they were probably subjected to various forms of "values clarification," a idea that teaches kids that morality is merely a matter of personal preference—that no value judgments are right or wrong.
When these kids reached high school, they were doubtless taught the philosophy of multiculturalism, in which moral truths are reduced to cultural values, none of which is morally superior to any others.
And when they reached college? There they would have been exposed to postmodernism, which teaches that values are all relative to race, gender, and ethnicity, and that any statements of moral truth are merely attempts to exert power over others and oppress them.
Clearly, many of today's students have learned their lessons well: They exhibit a severe case of absolutaphobia when they can't even bring themselves to raise moral objections to genocide and human sacrifice. They reject all moral absolutes as restrictions on their freedom.
But what they don't realize is that moral absolutes are our only guarantee of freedom. Without a set of transcendent moral truths that are above individual cultures and preferences, it is impossible to protect human rights.
Christians are getting kicked out of all of the Diners these days. You're getting kicked out of the classrooms, the courtrooms, TV land, proper social and academic circles, and politics. You're even getting kicked out of prisons! It seems like you are no longer wanted, because the perception is that you believe in absolutes, that some ideas and choices and lifestyles are better than others, and that you should say so.
The Christian doctrine of general revelation tells us that we all share a common human nature. As a result, you can often agree with nonbelievers on basic principles, such as honesty, courage, and respect for others. But talk about a God behind those principles, and you're out of line, mister.
You and I ought to support efforts that teach our kids the values on which most citizens can agree. We must help our neighbors and our children understand that without moral absolutes, there is nothing to stop the culture from drifting back toward human sacrifice… or from embracing another Holocaust.
Your Hungry Apatheist,
~Bill
It's an interesting thing that Google did recently. You see the Google ads everywhere, their searchboxes are on almost every website. One can, so I've heard, even visit the porn sites, and find Google. They seem to have no problem with this. Maybe I shouldn't, either. What I find interesting is that, though Google supports porn as long as Google gets paid, they refused to allow a Google ad to be placed on talk-show host Michael Savage's website; they say he is too "controversial".
You've seen the signs, right?
I don't mean the "No shirt, no shoes, no service" ones. Those are right at the front entrance, and are placed at the order of the Health Department. Those are for the good of everybody.
I mean those little signs, behind the counter. They read something like this: "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, at anytime, for anything." Ostensibly, they mean to let you know that if you are going to act like a jerk, you run the risk of being "86-ed". (Anyone know where that term came from?). But tell me, in a multi-cultural melting pot as America claims to be, don't those signs sound slightly discriminatory?
I made a mistake the other day at the Diner. Normally, I think of this as a place I can go to get away and just be myself. After all, everything and everybody is supposed to be tolerated, accepted and loved here at the Diner. And so it may be, except for...those who criticize the menu.
When the server listed the specials of the day, I said,"Oh my gosh, no I don't want that! Don't you know that stuff will kill you?" Immediately, the management gave me the opportunity to eat somewhere else for the evening. The shame of being kicked out of the Diner! In effect, they said my money was no good there, and neither was I.
----------
Were the Nazis wrong to murder millions of Jews? Is it wrong to practice human sacrifice? These questions may seem like obvious no-brainers. But prepare yourself for a shock. Many young people today consider genocide, human sacrifice, abortion, murder, and suicide open questions. (Does anyone remember the story The Lottery?)
Lately teachers have noticed a troubling trend: Up to 20 percent of students are unwilling to say that mass murder is immoral. Oh, they usually say they disapprove of what the Nazis did—but they consider this merely their own personal taste. "Of course I dislike the Nazis," a student may say. "But who is to say they were morally wrong?"
This moral malady is not new, but let's give it a name-- "absolutophobia"--the fear of making absolute moral judgments.
How did we reach a point where young people refuse to condemn mass murder and human sacrifice? The answer is that, as children, these kids were spoon-fed moral relativism along with their Gerber and their ABCs.
In grade school, they were probably subjected to various forms of "values clarification," a idea that teaches kids that morality is merely a matter of personal preference—that no value judgments are right or wrong.
When these kids reached high school, they were doubtless taught the philosophy of multiculturalism, in which moral truths are reduced to cultural values, none of which is morally superior to any others.
And when they reached college? There they would have been exposed to postmodernism, which teaches that values are all relative to race, gender, and ethnicity, and that any statements of moral truth are merely attempts to exert power over others and oppress them.
Clearly, many of today's students have learned their lessons well: They exhibit a severe case of absolutaphobia when they can't even bring themselves to raise moral objections to genocide and human sacrifice. They reject all moral absolutes as restrictions on their freedom.
But what they don't realize is that moral absolutes are our only guarantee of freedom. Without a set of transcendent moral truths that are above individual cultures and preferences, it is impossible to protect human rights.
Christians are getting kicked out of all of the Diners these days. You're getting kicked out of the classrooms, the courtrooms, TV land, proper social and academic circles, and politics. You're even getting kicked out of prisons! It seems like you are no longer wanted, because the perception is that you believe in absolutes, that some ideas and choices and lifestyles are better than others, and that you should say so.
The Christian doctrine of general revelation tells us that we all share a common human nature. As a result, you can often agree with nonbelievers on basic principles, such as honesty, courage, and respect for others. But talk about a God behind those principles, and you're out of line, mister.
You and I ought to support efforts that teach our kids the values on which most citizens can agree. We must help our neighbors and our children understand that without moral absolutes, there is nothing to stop the culture from drifting back toward human sacrifice… or from embracing another Holocaust.
Your Hungry Apatheist,
~Bill
It's an interesting thing that Google did recently. You see the Google ads everywhere, their searchboxes are on almost every website. One can, so I've heard, even visit the porn sites, and find Google. They seem to have no problem with this. Maybe I shouldn't, either. What I find interesting is that, though Google supports porn as long as Google gets paid, they refused to allow a Google ad to be placed on talk-show host Michael Savage's website; they say he is too "controversial".
Thursday, February 28, 2008
The Patiently Waiting Patient
Dear Readers,
Waiting is one of the most difficult characteristics of life. We wait for the bus to come; we wait for class to start; we wait while someone is in the bathroom ahead of us; we wait for the dough to rise. Wait, wait, wait, wait, and wait.
All this waiting requires a great deal of patience. I have heard patience described as, the ability to live peaceably with situations or people we do not like. I can buy that definition. This sort of waiting, with patience, makes all of life so much easier when we can actually achieve it.
This patience needs to be examined, however. Sure, it is a necessary part of most processes. And it is of primary importance when dealing with the sorts of processes surrounding many of the events and conditions encountered in the hospital setting. How could we say otherwise? Decisions that affect our life and death, and the lives of all around us, cannot be taken lightly.
Dilemmas such as experienced in cases of terminal illness tear me apart intellectually. All such moral problems do, as I suppose is the same for many, if not all, people. I try to have a consistent worldview. Sometimes this is easy. For instance, part of my worldview consists of the belief that human life is special, more so than any other life Earth. Being made in the image of God, placed as stewards of this planet and each of its inhabitants, comes with great responsibilities as well as privileges. Thus, it follows that I believe human life is to be protected at all costs and in all cases. Often the decisions to be made following this worldview are no-brainers. Abortion, for instance. Wrong in all cases; a no-brainer. In no instance does abortion not destroy a human life.
Sure, there may be sticky instances such as threats to a mother’s life. These instances are infinitesimal in the grand scheme of things. Most such abortion decisions are made simply for convenience’ sake, which in no instance is a valid reason for taking a human life.
On the other end of the spectrum are the cases of terminal illness and end-of-life decisions. They are not always so clear-cut, waiting becomes a crucial part of the process of decision-making. The differences from the above abortion example are many. The most important difference, though, is that in these cases a human life will be lost, no matter what. The paths that must be taken are not so clearly seen as when we are protecting a life, made in the image of God that in one sense, has yet to be lived.
I believe, now, the emphasis shifts to taking care of a life, still made in the image of God. This life, ending now, must be protected in a different way; one that preserves the human dignity and eliminates suffering.
Patience now can appear to be a refusal to deal with circumstance and make decisions that are unavoidable. Patience now is no virtuous trait. Patience stymies our growth, frustrates our desires, and just generally makes us crazy waiting for something to happen or get done.
Who knows how I would react when actually faced with the decisions that must be made in these terminal cases. I sit here now with as clear a mind as I can have, and believe that part of preserving my dignity and that of those around me would be to see the inevitable and not avoid seeing it. There is no dishonor in laying down your king and surrendering to an opponent who has played a good game. Exit stage right.
I simply hope that I know all the conditions of the game I am playing; that the doctors and nurses and families helping me play this game, will speak frankly and clearly to me of all that I face in the game; that they will support me in the decision to lay down my king; that they will help me see that I have played the game with dignity, and am now ready to go on to the next game.
Your Hospice-Friendly, Neighborhood Apatheist,
~Bill
Waiting is one of the most difficult characteristics of life. We wait for the bus to come; we wait for class to start; we wait while someone is in the bathroom ahead of us; we wait for the dough to rise. Wait, wait, wait, wait, and wait.
All this waiting requires a great deal of patience. I have heard patience described as, the ability to live peaceably with situations or people we do not like. I can buy that definition. This sort of waiting, with patience, makes all of life so much easier when we can actually achieve it.
This patience needs to be examined, however. Sure, it is a necessary part of most processes. And it is of primary importance when dealing with the sorts of processes surrounding many of the events and conditions encountered in the hospital setting. How could we say otherwise? Decisions that affect our life and death, and the lives of all around us, cannot be taken lightly.
Dilemmas such as experienced in cases of terminal illness tear me apart intellectually. All such moral problems do, as I suppose is the same for many, if not all, people. I try to have a consistent worldview. Sometimes this is easy. For instance, part of my worldview consists of the belief that human life is special, more so than any other life Earth. Being made in the image of God, placed as stewards of this planet and each of its inhabitants, comes with great responsibilities as well as privileges. Thus, it follows that I believe human life is to be protected at all costs and in all cases. Often the decisions to be made following this worldview are no-brainers. Abortion, for instance. Wrong in all cases; a no-brainer. In no instance does abortion not destroy a human life.
Sure, there may be sticky instances such as threats to a mother’s life. These instances are infinitesimal in the grand scheme of things. Most such abortion decisions are made simply for convenience’ sake, which in no instance is a valid reason for taking a human life.
On the other end of the spectrum are the cases of terminal illness and end-of-life decisions. They are not always so clear-cut, waiting becomes a crucial part of the process of decision-making. The differences from the above abortion example are many. The most important difference, though, is that in these cases a human life will be lost, no matter what. The paths that must be taken are not so clearly seen as when we are protecting a life, made in the image of God that in one sense, has yet to be lived.
I believe, now, the emphasis shifts to taking care of a life, still made in the image of God. This life, ending now, must be protected in a different way; one that preserves the human dignity and eliminates suffering.
Patience now can appear to be a refusal to deal with circumstance and make decisions that are unavoidable. Patience now is no virtuous trait. Patience stymies our growth, frustrates our desires, and just generally makes us crazy waiting for something to happen or get done.
Who knows how I would react when actually faced with the decisions that must be made in these terminal cases. I sit here now with as clear a mind as I can have, and believe that part of preserving my dignity and that of those around me would be to see the inevitable and not avoid seeing it. There is no dishonor in laying down your king and surrendering to an opponent who has played a good game. Exit stage right.
I simply hope that I know all the conditions of the game I am playing; that the doctors and nurses and families helping me play this game, will speak frankly and clearly to me of all that I face in the game; that they will support me in the decision to lay down my king; that they will help me see that I have played the game with dignity, and am now ready to go on to the next game.
Your Hospice-Friendly, Neighborhood Apatheist,
~Bill
Where is the Health Inspector?
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
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
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
Monday, November 05, 2007
Contains 0g Trans Fat; or, No Significant Nutritional Value
Dear Diners,
They're deceptive, those food labels and health claims at the grocery store and at the Cultural Diner. They're meant to be, for if we really knew what we are putting into ourselves perhaps we would be more cautious. Perhaps.
We have recourse to so much information it just boggles the mind. There are so many options, even with regard to what we do with the information. Try to wade through it all, pick and choose the tidbits we like, or simply ignore the whole lot of it and refuse to think about the consequences of our intake. But do we really have an excuse to remain ignorant today?
It can be amusing, actually, to observe the ways in which we react to the labels. You've seen the folks who Super Size their combo, and then get the Diet Coke. You've seen the folks who chow down on that extra serving or two of fat-free cheesecake, unaware of, disregarding, not caring, or rationalizing away the extra sugar to make it palatable. You've heard the jokes about how the calories have fallen out so it's okay to eat the half dozen broken cookies. Even the new labels about 0g trans fat make us feel so good we don't remark about the extra sodium those chips have.
You may be asking (or may not be), "Bill, what does all this have to do with the Cultural Diner?". Jennifer might hear my voice in her head, with my usual answer, "You just don't know, do you?" (She loves it when I say that!)
Unpacking boxes and boxes of books lately I came across a lot of stuff I didn't know we had, and a lot of stuff I did know we had. (By the way, a book's appearance on my shelf is not necessarily an endorsement. I read some obscure stuff). One such book was When Bad Things Happen to Good People by Harold Kushner. Many of you might have read it, but I'm sure all of you have heard of it.
The book has been through several printings and sold in the millions. The author became a celebrity for awhile, newspapers and magazines have printed excerpts from the book; it has even been endorsed by well-known pastors and seminary professors. The book deals with an ages-old query: How can a good, all-loving, all-powerful God allow such terrible evil and suffering in the world? It's a familiar question, regardless of whether one is thinking of the Holocaust, the slaughter of the Canaanites, or the child who dies in an automible accident. We all draw from our own experience, and feel this question in our gut even if we never voice it out loud.
The Rabbi Kushner answers that God is indeed all-loving, but He is not all-powerful; the bad things which happen are simply out of His control. He writes, "I can worship a God who hates suffering but cannot eliminate it more easily than I can worship a God who chooses to make children suffer and die." I remember hearing that an admiring reader once wrote to thank him, "Maybe now I can believe in a more realistic God."
Well, it sure is nice that the Rabbi Kushner has brought comfort to so many Americans. Hold on a sec...What do we mean by a more realistic God? Who decides if God is realistic?
The God that Kushner writes about is neither omnipotent nor sovereign. Therefore, He is not the God of Abaham, Isaac, and Jacob; not the all-powerful Creator God of the Bible. Yet people have gobbled up this book anyway; Christians have clamored for this impotent God.
I suppose this is not surprising. People yearn for answers to life's mysteries, and when someone comes along with an easy answer that gives comfort and rationalizes the supernatural, we stampede the bookstores. We'll sacrifice truth to our own prejudices every day.
How can we be blind to what is happening? We stand on the shores while waves of secular thinking crash around us and are washing away the foundation on which the church stands. Well-meaning books like this are directly shaping people's perceptions of God. What should our response be? Do we just hit the snooze button and roll over for a few minutes' peace?
The message presented is not new. It represents a theology that has spread like a cancer throughout the church, dismissing the power of God and telling us that the goodness of God is more important. They used to say God is dead; now we see He is not dead, merely ill and feeble.
Certainly, evil messages like this should be expected in a fallen world. What is not expected is for a holy people to accept it. What's worse, the church seems to have lost it's taste for issues like sin and evil. They aren't popular sermon topics--someone might get offended, or convicted. For that matter, neither is gluttony a popular sermon topic, but it is a common sight here at the Diner.
A weary, frustrated, and hungry people are easy marks for those who peddle simple answers to life's tough questions. Those who write the Nutrition Facts on the food we consume at the Cultural Diner know their prey, and it is us. I
If junk pop answers wrapped up in religious packaging are so widely accepted, then Christians aren't doing their job. We should learn to label heresy as heresy.
Appropriately Labelled,
Your Friendly, Neighborhood Apatheist,
~Bill
P.S. Just wondering, anyway--Who are the "good" people?
They're deceptive, those food labels and health claims at the grocery store and at the Cultural Diner. They're meant to be, for if we really knew what we are putting into ourselves perhaps we would be more cautious. Perhaps.
We have recourse to so much information it just boggles the mind. There are so many options, even with regard to what we do with the information. Try to wade through it all, pick and choose the tidbits we like, or simply ignore the whole lot of it and refuse to think about the consequences of our intake. But do we really have an excuse to remain ignorant today?
It can be amusing, actually, to observe the ways in which we react to the labels. You've seen the folks who Super Size their combo, and then get the Diet Coke. You've seen the folks who chow down on that extra serving or two of fat-free cheesecake, unaware of, disregarding, not caring, or rationalizing away the extra sugar to make it palatable. You've heard the jokes about how the calories have fallen out so it's okay to eat the half dozen broken cookies. Even the new labels about 0g trans fat make us feel so good we don't remark about the extra sodium those chips have.
You may be asking (or may not be), "Bill, what does all this have to do with the Cultural Diner?". Jennifer might hear my voice in her head, with my usual answer, "You just don't know, do you?" (She loves it when I say that!)
Unpacking boxes and boxes of books lately I came across a lot of stuff I didn't know we had, and a lot of stuff I did know we had. (By the way, a book's appearance on my shelf is not necessarily an endorsement. I read some obscure stuff). One such book was When Bad Things Happen to Good People by Harold Kushner. Many of you might have read it, but I'm sure all of you have heard of it.
The book has been through several printings and sold in the millions. The author became a celebrity for awhile, newspapers and magazines have printed excerpts from the book; it has even been endorsed by well-known pastors and seminary professors. The book deals with an ages-old query: How can a good, all-loving, all-powerful God allow such terrible evil and suffering in the world? It's a familiar question, regardless of whether one is thinking of the Holocaust, the slaughter of the Canaanites, or the child who dies in an automible accident. We all draw from our own experience, and feel this question in our gut even if we never voice it out loud.
The Rabbi Kushner answers that God is indeed all-loving, but He is not all-powerful; the bad things which happen are simply out of His control. He writes, "I can worship a God who hates suffering but cannot eliminate it more easily than I can worship a God who chooses to make children suffer and die." I remember hearing that an admiring reader once wrote to thank him, "Maybe now I can believe in a more realistic God."
Well, it sure is nice that the Rabbi Kushner has brought comfort to so many Americans. Hold on a sec...What do we mean by a more realistic God? Who decides if God is realistic?
The God that Kushner writes about is neither omnipotent nor sovereign. Therefore, He is not the God of Abaham, Isaac, and Jacob; not the all-powerful Creator God of the Bible. Yet people have gobbled up this book anyway; Christians have clamored for this impotent God.
I suppose this is not surprising. People yearn for answers to life's mysteries, and when someone comes along with an easy answer that gives comfort and rationalizes the supernatural, we stampede the bookstores. We'll sacrifice truth to our own prejudices every day.
How can we be blind to what is happening? We stand on the shores while waves of secular thinking crash around us and are washing away the foundation on which the church stands. Well-meaning books like this are directly shaping people's perceptions of God. What should our response be? Do we just hit the snooze button and roll over for a few minutes' peace?
The message presented is not new. It represents a theology that has spread like a cancer throughout the church, dismissing the power of God and telling us that the goodness of God is more important. They used to say God is dead; now we see He is not dead, merely ill and feeble.
Certainly, evil messages like this should be expected in a fallen world. What is not expected is for a holy people to accept it. What's worse, the church seems to have lost it's taste for issues like sin and evil. They aren't popular sermon topics--someone might get offended, or convicted. For that matter, neither is gluttony a popular sermon topic, but it is a common sight here at the Diner.
A weary, frustrated, and hungry people are easy marks for those who peddle simple answers to life's tough questions. Those who write the Nutrition Facts on the food we consume at the Cultural Diner know their prey, and it is us. I
If junk pop answers wrapped up in religious packaging are so widely accepted, then Christians aren't doing their job. We should learn to label heresy as heresy.
Appropriately Labelled,
Your Friendly, Neighborhood Apatheist,
~Bill
P.S. Just wondering, anyway--Who are the "good" people?
Under the Neon Rainbow
Fellow Noshers,
It's not easy to be hungry when so much fodder is being set in front of you. Why would we want to be hungry anyway? What is this fodder being set in front of us that is preventing us from experiencing true hunger? It is important to consider these questions, because they offer clues to our dissatisfaction and hope for our fulfillment in life.
The function of our Cultural Diner is to get us to eat. It signals us that something is missing, something we need and can only get in the buffet line. The neon lights flash outside the Diner: "Open! All you can eat!". There's no need to eat alone at the Diner, either. The cooking-challenged among us are the most welcome guests at the Diner, for we are most appreciative of the food, any food.
The function of hunger is to get us to eat. It is the signal of the creature that something is needed for its growth and sustenance. And hunger pangs will increase until we attend to them.
Hunger has an incredible intelligence behind it. It is a driving force in our nature that pushes us to do what is good for us. The hunger of the soul is just as real and just as compelling as the hunger of the body. When something is needed, we feel it. When it is time for a new phase, it begins to happen. We hunger, we stretch toward new boundaries; the seed cracks open, seeking to be the flower it was meant to be.
From this perspective, it is clear why we would want to have true hunger, for it signals to us what we need and insists that we attend to those needs. The problem is that we have a lot of mixed feelings, and some misconceptions, about the soul’s hunger. The signals of change can be uncomfortable and disruptive. It could be that a sense of emptiness, or lack of meaning, arises; or perhaps depression comes. We may find ourselves restless and dissatisfied despite the fact that our lives are pretty good. Interests that once captivated us may no longer hold the same attraction. We may feel distant from people around us.
Our soul tells us what it needs. We just have to pay attention and attune to its dietary preferences. Otherwise, we will tend to give it fodder rather than real nourishment. The word fodder here means all the “food” that we give ourselves, with the best of intentions, that ultimately does not satisfy. The menu at the Cultural Diner doesn't look like fodder. It all looks like Turkish Delight; colorful and tasty but with no nutritional value, and loaded with MSG to keep up appearances no matter how long it's been under the heat lamps. Narnia's witch was right; she knows what captivates us, and holds us captive.
Typically, we feed the soul as if it were our body. Mistakenly, if it needs sweetness, we eat chocolate. If it craves peace, we give it alcohol or TV. If the soul is longing for freedom, we may have an affair or go bungee jumping. In each case, it is an attempt to provide outer solutions to inner needs.
I believe that there is one most pervasive form of fodder in our time. It is so common that it is considered normal, and yet ultimately it does not satisfy our true hunger. This attempt to satiate the soul's appetite, is ceaseless activity. What we really know how to do is stay busy. And, at the slightest hint of some inner restlessness we add more activity. For some people it is longer and longer work weeks. Others move from work to kids, or TV, or clubs and service projects. Even most vacations are merely another form of busyness. Even our children rush madly from school, to lessons, to the big game, and then off to do homework.There is nothing bad or wrong with these activities. The issue is one of balance. For most of us there is little time or value given to simply being, being alone and quiet. And therefore there is insufficient opportunity for real and deep contact, with ourselves, our families, our Creator.. And that is what we are truly hungry for.
Imagine a marriage in which every night were filled - movies, meetings, friends - and that the couple never really talked. In the absence of these moments of true contact, an essential element of the relationship that both people longed for would be missing. It is exactly the same with our primary relationship - the one we have with our innermost selves. As with any intimate relationship, it needs time and attention, with sincere and truthful discourse.
It sounds so simple to just be with ourselves. But this can be hard work. When we finally slow down and block off a little time, we are likely to see that our minds and bodies cannot be still. Or we experience such fatigue that we cannot stay awake. This is so, in part, because we live in a society with a nervous condition so widespread that there is a loss of the capacity to be still. To learn to relax the ceaseless engines of physical and mental activity takes patience and persistence. It is even an acquired taste. However, once we develop the ability to be still, each menu selection will become truly delicious.
Pay no attention to the neon signs. Go home and eat in the dark.
~Bill
It's not easy to be hungry when so much fodder is being set in front of you. Why would we want to be hungry anyway? What is this fodder being set in front of us that is preventing us from experiencing true hunger? It is important to consider these questions, because they offer clues to our dissatisfaction and hope for our fulfillment in life.
The function of our Cultural Diner is to get us to eat. It signals us that something is missing, something we need and can only get in the buffet line. The neon lights flash outside the Diner: "Open! All you can eat!". There's no need to eat alone at the Diner, either. The cooking-challenged among us are the most welcome guests at the Diner, for we are most appreciative of the food, any food.
The function of hunger is to get us to eat. It is the signal of the creature that something is needed for its growth and sustenance. And hunger pangs will increase until we attend to them.
Hunger has an incredible intelligence behind it. It is a driving force in our nature that pushes us to do what is good for us. The hunger of the soul is just as real and just as compelling as the hunger of the body. When something is needed, we feel it. When it is time for a new phase, it begins to happen. We hunger, we stretch toward new boundaries; the seed cracks open, seeking to be the flower it was meant to be.
From this perspective, it is clear why we would want to have true hunger, for it signals to us what we need and insists that we attend to those needs. The problem is that we have a lot of mixed feelings, and some misconceptions, about the soul’s hunger. The signals of change can be uncomfortable and disruptive. It could be that a sense of emptiness, or lack of meaning, arises; or perhaps depression comes. We may find ourselves restless and dissatisfied despite the fact that our lives are pretty good. Interests that once captivated us may no longer hold the same attraction. We may feel distant from people around us.
Our soul tells us what it needs. We just have to pay attention and attune to its dietary preferences. Otherwise, we will tend to give it fodder rather than real nourishment. The word fodder here means all the “food” that we give ourselves, with the best of intentions, that ultimately does not satisfy. The menu at the Cultural Diner doesn't look like fodder. It all looks like Turkish Delight; colorful and tasty but with no nutritional value, and loaded with MSG to keep up appearances no matter how long it's been under the heat lamps. Narnia's witch was right; she knows what captivates us, and holds us captive.
Typically, we feed the soul as if it were our body. Mistakenly, if it needs sweetness, we eat chocolate. If it craves peace, we give it alcohol or TV. If the soul is longing for freedom, we may have an affair or go bungee jumping. In each case, it is an attempt to provide outer solutions to inner needs.
I believe that there is one most pervasive form of fodder in our time. It is so common that it is considered normal, and yet ultimately it does not satisfy our true hunger. This attempt to satiate the soul's appetite, is ceaseless activity. What we really know how to do is stay busy. And, at the slightest hint of some inner restlessness we add more activity. For some people it is longer and longer work weeks. Others move from work to kids, or TV, or clubs and service projects. Even most vacations are merely another form of busyness. Even our children rush madly from school, to lessons, to the big game, and then off to do homework.There is nothing bad or wrong with these activities. The issue is one of balance. For most of us there is little time or value given to simply being, being alone and quiet. And therefore there is insufficient opportunity for real and deep contact, with ourselves, our families, our Creator.. And that is what we are truly hungry for.
Imagine a marriage in which every night were filled - movies, meetings, friends - and that the couple never really talked. In the absence of these moments of true contact, an essential element of the relationship that both people longed for would be missing. It is exactly the same with our primary relationship - the one we have with our innermost selves. As with any intimate relationship, it needs time and attention, with sincere and truthful discourse.
It sounds so simple to just be with ourselves. But this can be hard work. When we finally slow down and block off a little time, we are likely to see that our minds and bodies cannot be still. Or we experience such fatigue that we cannot stay awake. This is so, in part, because we live in a society with a nervous condition so widespread that there is a loss of the capacity to be still. To learn to relax the ceaseless engines of physical and mental activity takes patience and persistence. It is even an acquired taste. However, once we develop the ability to be still, each menu selection will become truly delicious.
Pay no attention to the neon signs. Go home and eat in the dark.
~Bill
The Real World
Disclaimer: The comments and opinions expressed in this message do not necessarily reflect the comments, opinions, or practices, of the message's management, owners, or staff.
The following message has been closed-captioned for the thinking-impaired.
You know what I think the problem is with pornography? It doesn't go far enough.
Madison Avenue and the porn industry have created a fantasy world, with unlimited takes, staged photo sessions with make-up breaks, and computerized editing to cover the flaws. They are slick, no doubt, but we should see right through them.
Like stage sets and building fronts, their pre-packaged titillations can make your own hometown seem third-world, and your own relationship seem drab by comparison. What place or what person can compete on a daily basis with the phony show? The answer is that no one can.
Their sets are incomplete, as are the images they project. They want us to believe they have the total package. The problem, though, is the version of sexuality they present is concerned only with the physical activities of lust. It has been stripped of it's biblical perspective as far more than coitus. It is incomplete.
They have created a fantasy world, alright. We should recognize this, because in our real world sex is a mixture of tenderness and toughness, love and fatigue, excitement and disappointment. When we seek to believe the fantasy world, we can begin to cast a searing glance at the flaws in our real world.
Make-believe is fun for awhile, but our real world is beautiful forever.
I love you, Jennifer. You are my whole world.
~Bill
The following message has been closed-captioned for the thinking-impaired.
You know what I think the problem is with pornography? It doesn't go far enough.
Madison Avenue and the porn industry have created a fantasy world, with unlimited takes, staged photo sessions with make-up breaks, and computerized editing to cover the flaws. They are slick, no doubt, but we should see right through them.
Like stage sets and building fronts, their pre-packaged titillations can make your own hometown seem third-world, and your own relationship seem drab by comparison. What place or what person can compete on a daily basis with the phony show? The answer is that no one can.
Their sets are incomplete, as are the images they project. They want us to believe they have the total package. The problem, though, is the version of sexuality they present is concerned only with the physical activities of lust. It has been stripped of it's biblical perspective as far more than coitus. It is incomplete.
They have created a fantasy world, alright. We should recognize this, because in our real world sex is a mixture of tenderness and toughness, love and fatigue, excitement and disappointment. When we seek to believe the fantasy world, we can begin to cast a searing glance at the flaws in our real world.
Make-believe is fun for awhile, but our real world is beautiful forever.
I love you, Jennifer. You are my whole world.
~Bill
The Atkins' Family...Diet
Da, da, da, dum...snap! snap!
Da, da, da, dum...snap! snap!
They're creepy and they're kooky.
They're off to get an ooky.
The Atkins' Family.
Have you seen anyone do this? You're in a burger place, and a person nearby orders a hamburger..sans bun! What is going through their mind? I mean sure, we all have different tastes, but a hamburger is a hamburger, and it has a bun! It's just not the same without it.
You know the routine. The Atkins' diet is the king of the low-carb craze. Dr. Atkins has convinced millions that carbs are taboo, that high-protein and high-fat diets are what we need to be healthy, slim, and happy. (An aside: How does that differ from the beer commercials? Oh well, another day...).
However, ask any nutritionist what the real deal is with these low-carb diets, and they will tell you: We need carbohydrates. We can't live without them. Not only that, but our intake of carbs should be the bulk of our caloric intake. A healthy diet is simply incomplete without them. We can choose to follow these diets, and even look and feel good for awhile doing so. In the long run, we are just risking our health for a short-term gain.
Americans, though, like to have choices, lots of them. They also like to believe just about any new fad that comes down the pike will make them healthy, wealthy, and wise, easily. Our Cultural Diner has evolved that way, so it is always pushing for us to eat more, faster; and the menu is constantly changing.
So what is my point? Well, I'm not trying to knock anyone's eating habits. One look at my daily fare would convince you of that! Also, most nutritionists would frown upon the prolonged fasts I occasionally take. They're tough on a body, too, the way other extreme diets are.
What I am getting around to saying is that, Dan Quayle was right! Potatoe is spelled that way!
I'm going to go out on a limb here. Now, it's a pretty strong limb; but some folks might disagree with me. We need first to understand how the world’s greatest social evils are rooted in “the chosen absence of the biological father,” whether physical or emotional in nature. This reality of broken aspirations and torn families permeates the entire spectrum of human life and history. If we listen to the children of divorce, we can trace most pain back to what is, or is at least perceived to be, such a chosen absence.
Ironically, the problem is originally seen in a story several thousand years old, and it describes both the social instability we see in America today and helps illuminate the struggle of the "War on Terrorism". Historically, the pain of just such a chosen absence most deeply affects the Arab and Muslim soul. Most of us know the story, but how many of us want to acknowledge the implications of it in our personal lives and in the world around us?
Abraham is the father to both the Arabs and the Jews; his son Ishmael is the father of the Arabs, his son Isaac is the father of the Jews, and Christians are spiritual descendants of Jewish history. The nature of the conflict between Ishmael and Isaac is thus defined forever.
In Genesis 16, Abraham’s wife Sarah sought to address her barrenness by suggesting that Abraham sleep with her Egyptian maidservant, Hagar. Her intent was to “build a family through her,” which is to say, the first recorded surrogate motherhood. Sarah was not even giving Hagar the status of a concubine, who at least could raise her own child. Sarah planned to take the child from Hagar at birth and claim him for her own.
Abraham agreed to the idea, and when Hagar knew she was pregnant, and understood Sarah’s designs, she despised her. Sarah despised Hagar in return, blamed the matter on Abraham, and began to mistreat Hagar. This led to conflict when Isaac was born to Abraham and Sarah thirteen years later. Ishmael was biologically the firstborn and resented the fact that Isaac was to be honored legally as the firstborn.
Now Abraham wanted to be a present father to his son Ishmael. But Sarah prevented him, and in order to keep his marriage intact, Abraham could not publicly embrace Ishmael. His relational absence from Ishmael’s life was not his desired choice, but it was the fruit of a choice he foolishly made. It was a chosen, yet not chosen, absence—with devastating effects on Ishmael and world history. The war between the women has produced a war between the sons, a war between the Arabs and Jews and, hence, a war between the nations.
From Ishmael’s perspective as a young boy, he grew up not knowing why his father Abraham was relationally absent in his life. There was his father, the patriarch of a large community, wealthy and with a status near to that of a king. Abraham was powerful, therefore his absence must be chosen, so the little boy would grow to reason. All that young Ishmael desired was the honor of being known and treated as his father’s son. But the choices made prevented it.
Thus, Ishmael grew up burdened in shame, written into his soul and his life from before his birth. Shame wounds most severely when it is through no fault of our own and we feel personally rejected by someone of great importance to us. As the Arab peoples have descended from Ishmael (directly by bloodline and/or more indirectly in cultural terms), their psyche has been shaped by the burden of shame. This reality of the shame-conflict in the Arab soul is clear to this day.
Dan Quayle was right. When families fall, societies fall. Fathers must be present. Fathers must make the right, responsible choices. We can know longer expect to enjoy our hamburger without the bun. It is incomplete, and unhealthy.
I am the broken product of poor family dietary choices. It hurts. In spite of that hurt, I took on the eating habits of my immediate family and my culture. I, too, have made those wrong culinary decisions. I and my family have suffered through the emotional heartburn and psychological indigestion for many years.
I ate too much! I ate too fast! How do you spell relief?
Gastronomically yours,
~Bill
The consequences of Ishmael’s shame are summed up in Genesis 16:12:
“He will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone’s hand against him, and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers.”
Da, da, da, dum...snap! snap!
They're creepy and they're kooky.
They're off to get an ooky.
The Atkins' Family.
Have you seen anyone do this? You're in a burger place, and a person nearby orders a hamburger..sans bun! What is going through their mind? I mean sure, we all have different tastes, but a hamburger is a hamburger, and it has a bun! It's just not the same without it.
You know the routine. The Atkins' diet is the king of the low-carb craze. Dr. Atkins has convinced millions that carbs are taboo, that high-protein and high-fat diets are what we need to be healthy, slim, and happy. (An aside: How does that differ from the beer commercials? Oh well, another day...).
However, ask any nutritionist what the real deal is with these low-carb diets, and they will tell you: We need carbohydrates. We can't live without them. Not only that, but our intake of carbs should be the bulk of our caloric intake. A healthy diet is simply incomplete without them. We can choose to follow these diets, and even look and feel good for awhile doing so. In the long run, we are just risking our health for a short-term gain.
Americans, though, like to have choices, lots of them. They also like to believe just about any new fad that comes down the pike will make them healthy, wealthy, and wise, easily. Our Cultural Diner has evolved that way, so it is always pushing for us to eat more, faster; and the menu is constantly changing.
So what is my point? Well, I'm not trying to knock anyone's eating habits. One look at my daily fare would convince you of that! Also, most nutritionists would frown upon the prolonged fasts I occasionally take. They're tough on a body, too, the way other extreme diets are.
What I am getting around to saying is that, Dan Quayle was right! Potatoe is spelled that way!
I'm going to go out on a limb here. Now, it's a pretty strong limb; but some folks might disagree with me. We need first to understand how the world’s greatest social evils are rooted in “the chosen absence of the biological father,” whether physical or emotional in nature. This reality of broken aspirations and torn families permeates the entire spectrum of human life and history. If we listen to the children of divorce, we can trace most pain back to what is, or is at least perceived to be, such a chosen absence.
Ironically, the problem is originally seen in a story several thousand years old, and it describes both the social instability we see in America today and helps illuminate the struggle of the "War on Terrorism". Historically, the pain of just such a chosen absence most deeply affects the Arab and Muslim soul. Most of us know the story, but how many of us want to acknowledge the implications of it in our personal lives and in the world around us?
Abraham is the father to both the Arabs and the Jews; his son Ishmael is the father of the Arabs, his son Isaac is the father of the Jews, and Christians are spiritual descendants of Jewish history. The nature of the conflict between Ishmael and Isaac is thus defined forever.
In Genesis 16, Abraham’s wife Sarah sought to address her barrenness by suggesting that Abraham sleep with her Egyptian maidservant, Hagar. Her intent was to “build a family through her,” which is to say, the first recorded surrogate motherhood. Sarah was not even giving Hagar the status of a concubine, who at least could raise her own child. Sarah planned to take the child from Hagar at birth and claim him for her own.
Abraham agreed to the idea, and when Hagar knew she was pregnant, and understood Sarah’s designs, she despised her. Sarah despised Hagar in return, blamed the matter on Abraham, and began to mistreat Hagar. This led to conflict when Isaac was born to Abraham and Sarah thirteen years later. Ishmael was biologically the firstborn and resented the fact that Isaac was to be honored legally as the firstborn.
Now Abraham wanted to be a present father to his son Ishmael. But Sarah prevented him, and in order to keep his marriage intact, Abraham could not publicly embrace Ishmael. His relational absence from Ishmael’s life was not his desired choice, but it was the fruit of a choice he foolishly made. It was a chosen, yet not chosen, absence—with devastating effects on Ishmael and world history. The war between the women has produced a war between the sons, a war between the Arabs and Jews and, hence, a war between the nations.
From Ishmael’s perspective as a young boy, he grew up not knowing why his father Abraham was relationally absent in his life. There was his father, the patriarch of a large community, wealthy and with a status near to that of a king. Abraham was powerful, therefore his absence must be chosen, so the little boy would grow to reason. All that young Ishmael desired was the honor of being known and treated as his father’s son. But the choices made prevented it.
Thus, Ishmael grew up burdened in shame, written into his soul and his life from before his birth. Shame wounds most severely when it is through no fault of our own and we feel personally rejected by someone of great importance to us. As the Arab peoples have descended from Ishmael (directly by bloodline and/or more indirectly in cultural terms), their psyche has been shaped by the burden of shame. This reality of the shame-conflict in the Arab soul is clear to this day.
Dan Quayle was right. When families fall, societies fall. Fathers must be present. Fathers must make the right, responsible choices. We can know longer expect to enjoy our hamburger without the bun. It is incomplete, and unhealthy.
I am the broken product of poor family dietary choices. It hurts. In spite of that hurt, I took on the eating habits of my immediate family and my culture. I, too, have made those wrong culinary decisions. I and my family have suffered through the emotional heartburn and psychological indigestion for many years.
I ate too much! I ate too fast! How do you spell relief?
Gastronomically yours,
~Bill
The consequences of Ishmael’s shame are summed up in Genesis 16:12:
“He will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone’s hand against him, and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)