March 2007 Archives

Quick update:

I'm still off fast food, as long as Pizza Hut doesn't count.

I've been busy at work overseeing the installation of my new driving simulator.

I'm way, way, way behind in my reading for the year.

My wife and I have been busy getting our house ready to sell. Our first open house was this past Sunday.

My friend William started a blog.

Are you a Red-Letter Christian? These Christians believe that Evangelicals should focus on the actual teachings of Jesus (hence "red-letter"), especially when it comes to social issues. The movement was started by Tony Campolo and Jim Wallis in response to the Religious Right's heavy emphasis on abortion and homosexuality--two issues that Jesus did not address directly. Campolo has a short piece on Belief.net that defines the Red-Letter Christian movement.

Campolo and Wallis fall into the category of Progressive Christians. Campolo is a professor emeritus of Sociology at Eastern University in Pennsylvania, and a popular Christian speaker. Wallis is head of the progressive Christian magazine Sojourners and author of the recent book God's Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It (2004). According to Campolo, the reason for creating the Red-Letter Christian movement "was not to create a religious left movement to challenge the religious right, but to jump-start a religious movement that will transcend partisan politics."

The social issues valued by Red-Letter Christians are the issues that Jesus spoke of directly, including caring for the poor, evangelism, and loving one's enemies. They believe that these issues should be the political priorities of Christians rather than other issues like homosexual rights, abortion, and war. They argue that these issues are important but over-emphasized by both liberals and conservatives. This last point is an important one as I suspect many Christian Republicans accuse the progressive movement of being soft on abortion and homosexuality. Campolo addressed this point in a recent podcast by stating that they don't want to minimize these two important issues, but that they shouldn't be the only issues as they often are for many Evangelicals, especially when it comes to voting. Jesus spoke about poverty more than any other issue. Why isn't that the main social issue for Christians? What about peace? What about the environment? Red-Letter Christians are pushing for a more holistic approach to political issues. Dobson and Colson balked at this notion, arguing instead that Evangelicals must remain focused abortion and homosexuality as their primary social issues.

As you might expect, the Red-Letter Christian movement has been accused of shaping its belief around politics rather than the other way around. I think that criticism is a straw-man argument that attacks Christians who want to let abortion continue and support homosexuality. That's not what the movement advocates. They are anti-abortion and are very concerned about homosexuality (though they are certainly softer on this latter issue than most conservative Evangelicals). Those of you who know me can immediately see that I fit very nicely with the Red-Letter Christian movement. I must say, however, that I think that name is a bit unfortunate because it could be interpreted as taking only what Jesus said with disregard for the rest of the Bible. That's not the case, of course, but it sets up an easy mischaracterization by idiots like Falwell and Robertson.

I'm two weeks into my abstention from fast food and I'm cruising without much difficulty. I don't think it's the food that I enjoyed as much as the convenience. And let me tell you, the biggest temptation I've had so far had everything to do with hunger and convenience. I teach on Monday afternoons from 4:30 to 7:10. I try and eat a late lunch those days so I'm not dying from hunger by the end of class. By 7:30pm, though, I'm typically more than ready for a meal, and the $1 Double-Cheeseburger from McDonald's begins its siren song. This past Monday was no exception--I was plenty hungry after class and I didn't feel like making something when I got home. The smell from the campus Burger King was intoxicating, but I kept my resolve and asked my wife to start some food for me while I drove home. Other than that one episode, it hasn't been bad at all.

I haven't had fast food since before Ash Wednesday, so I decided that would be my sacrifice until Easter. For some of you, skipping McDonald's, BK, Taco Bell, et al. wouldn't be a challenge, but this ban will leave plenty of gaps in my weekly diet. Dave made a great point that the true purpose of the Lent sacrifice is to refocus one's attention on God. I must confess, though, that my exercise is rooted more in self-denial rather than in spiritual conditioning. Obviously these needn't be exclusive, but they seem to be so for me now.

Now on to practical matters: I need some opinions about what constitutes fast food. There are the obvious chains (McDonald's, BK, Taco Bell, KFC, and Wendy's), but what about sandwich shops and pizza? Do Subway and Quizno's count as fast food? What about Chipotle? My wife says if it's not fried, it's not fast food. Of course, that's not a perfect criterion, but it's a pretty good heuristic.