who's wrong
imago is 'doing lent'. i've never been part of a church that participated in lent before. i don't fully understand it, but i believe part of the gist is that you can 'fast' something for the 40 days leading up to easter. some people do meat or chocolate or tv or any number of things. i was thinking about participating and giving up sugar. that would be a shocker to my system.
i was telling dave this and explaining i thought it might be a nice side effect that i'd probably lose a fair amount of weight in the process. he said that's blasphemous (to be at least partially motivated by a potential benefit for me). i don't see how. your thoughts?
(dave's curious)
posted by Sarah at 3/05/2006 10:47:00 PM
5 Comments:
Is there really anything in life we do out of totally pure motivations? Probably nothin gin my life. There is always a littel bit of selfishness with everything. I might choose to give up TV instead of sugar, but I might also be looking forward to the extra time I'll have to practice guitar or whatever. The question becomes then how pure do our motivations really have to be before we can do soemthing with a clear conscience? Smarter people than me can answer this question...
While I wouldn't think it's blasphemous to give up something for lent that also benefits you, I think it does undermine the purpose to give up something that's easy, or needs to be given up anyway.
That said, I'm not sure sugar would qualify as being a problem, since you probably wouldn't give it up without lent. Lent is supposed to be of benefit to you (in that you learn to detach from earthly things and cleave to God), and I don't think God would really want you to be unhealthy anyway. So, what really matters, I would expect, is your reason for picking sugar as your lent fast. Is it because you got a two-fer out of it, or because you thought it would be a significant sacrifice, and then you also realized it would make you healthier?
On a similar line of thinking, it's not wrong to get pleasure from helping out the poor. However, if you help out the poor just because it makes you feel better, you've just gotten your reward.
Lent already started, but I guess it's not too late. I started doing Lent a few years ago. I don't think it's blasphemous at all. The past few years I've given up chocolate and this year I gave up all desserts. Here's why I don't think it's blasphemous (even though I do want to lose weight): My weight problem is really a discipline problem (not a physical one). I am addicted to chocolate and sweets in general. They dominate my life and my relationship with God, because they greatly effect my own self-image. When I manage to have the mental and spiritual discipline to say no to those things, I lose weight, I feel healthier, have more energy, start to feel good about myself and confident, I have a clear head and am able to trust God more. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm not able to really separate the body from the mind from the soul. They all effect each other. If I can have discipline over my body, then that will empower me to have discipline in other areas of my life. ...But right now, the area I most need discipline in is my body.
Good comments! Erin and I are also observing lent this year with TV. I also think that many of God's rules have extremely practical benefit for us. Lent is not a rule, but it is in the spirit of fasting and praying and spiritual discipline, denying your body something. I think it can be valuable in many different ways. Dave is not a very good postmodernist.
Okay, Dave, I see your point. But would it have been appropriate for Jesus to have gone into the desert and fasted for 40 days because his addiction to, say, fish and loaves, was interfering with his ministry?
(Laying aside the idea that Jesus would have never been addicted to anything in the first place because that would be sinful)
...Gee, I miss these kinds of talks at our group meetings. When are you guys moving back? =)
Post a Comment
<< Home