Skip to main content

Lent 2016

Lent is traditionally and routinely considered a period that requires observers to abstain from something they normally enjoy, or behaviors that are not considered reflections of a mature faith. This is characterized as a period of self-denial, of stopping the doing of something for a period of time.

There are two observations we might make this year. The first is that Lent need not involve giving something up that is not conducive to the Christian walk. What if instead of giving something up for 40 days, we began or took something up for those 40 days? Is there something in your walk that is missing, that you have not been consistent in doing? Are there practices you have thought about beginning? Maybe a more consistent quiet time, or an intentional ministering to the homeless or poor? Maybe it's journaling prayers, or maybe something that needs you to be more consistent at home, work, or school. Lent need not be a subtraction, but a growing into something positive, more disciplined, more other-focused.

The second observation is that we shouldn't treat Lent as only a limited period of time of denial or practice. Rather than giving up chocolate for seven weeks, intend to establish a habit of healthier eating that will last beyond Lent. If, rather than subtracting, you elect to add or develop a new practice or behavior, similarly do so with the intent of continuing the practice after Lent, rather than simply as an experiment.

The purpose of Lent can include reflection, waiting, remembering, or in some other way growing closer to God. If this is true, then it may be appropriate to add or begin something rather than ending something. Once begun or ended, whatever we choose for Lent, use the extended period of Lent to establish a basis to launch a truly changed perspective that would live well beyond Lent.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Obedience Rather Than Sacrifice

Saul it seems, was instructed to have the Israelite completely destroy the Amalekites – people and animals. Rather, Saul allowed the Israelites to capture the Amalekite king, and to bring back the choicest live stock. When Samuel returns to visit Saul, the bleating of the sheep and the lowing of the cattle are clearly audible. Assuming that the Israelites had done what had been directed, Samuel finds this noise to be somewhat unexpected, and so he asks Saul to explain what has happened. Saul’s response is a two-parter. The first is that the people have brought back the best of the plunder to sacrifice it to God. The second is that Saul was afraid of the people and so he let them bring back the plunder [and in this explanation, we don’t know why]. Samuel’s response is his mission for God, and he will complete it. Samuel tells Saul that he has failed in his mission to destroy the Amalekites and as a result God has rejected him as king of Israel. In Samuel’s discussion with Saul, he says:

Elders redux

A reader (I am always amazed that people actually read this blog) submitted a rather long comment on the original post on Elders. It is apparent that the reader did some good homework as the comment has several, well, more than several, reference citations. It is clear that they both read the original post and did some Bible study before posting their comment. Because the comment was so long, I thought it appropriate to post another entry rather than bury the response in the comment log. In the following discussion, I have included the text of the comment without the Scripture references. If you want to read the comment in its entirety, scroll to the Elders post and click on the comment. --------------------------------------------------------- [Comment~~~~The church is expected to be a people in exactly this sense. We are the people of God who are charged with continuing and preserving the values, culture, hopes, and the identity of God’s people in our time.~~~~ Does this include th

Naaman's Dipping and Requests

The familiar story of Naaman dipping in the Jordan is a story with more than a few twists. Let's review the story first. Naaman we are told had been used by YHWH to punish Israel and our story describes him as a man of valor in high regard by his boss, the King of Syria the current thorn in the side of Israel. It turns out though that Naaman suffers from some sort of leprosy.  On one of Syria's raids into Israel, the Syrians captured an Jewish girl who had found her way into Naaman's household as a servant for his wife. Knowing of Naaman's illness, she suggests to her matron that there is a prophet in Israel who could help him. This message gets transmitted to Naaman who takes it to his boss. The boss - the king of Syria, tells Naaman to travel to Israel and gives him a letter to Israel's king directing that Naaman be healed. Upon Naaman's arrival in Israel he gives the letter to Israel's king who reacts in a panic. He does not even consider finding t