Sunday, June 26, 2005
Lyme Disease
Well, that was certainly an interesting experience...I just returned from Costa Rica, but the real adventure started two weeks ago.
After five sleepless nights, I decided to visit the doctor because of a severe headache and a fever. At first the doctor thought I was dehydrated from marathon training, so they stuck me with an IV. When that did not seem to help, I headed to the ER for more fluids and blood tests. The blood tests were negative, as were the CAT scan and Spinal Tap--side note: those hurt like hell.
Reluctantly, the doctors let me decide if I should go on to Costa Rica (I was leaving town in 10 hours). Without a diagnosis, though, they suggested I stay stateside--but since I am rather stubborn, I had made my mind up to leave as scheduled and "tough" it out.
So I returned home, took a nap and felt...horrible. With the doctor's office closing in twenty minutes, and my bags packed, I discovered a huge rash on my ankle. Lindsay and I jumped in the car and headed back to McCosh, figuring that the rash had cancelled the trip. Surprisingly the doctors were relieved to see my rash and immediately diagnosised me with Lyme Disease, threw a ton of pills at me and said "Adios."
Though the trip from Newark to Atlanta to Liberia, Costa Rica is a fog of post-spinal tap pain, medicine and lyme disease, I ended up in a beautiful country with my family for an amazing trip.
Thursday, June 09, 2005
Suffering vs. Sacrifice
While training for the marathon, I came to a conclusion.
Jesus did not sacrifice himself on the cross.
If Jesus willingly chose to die on the cross, and withheld his ability to "come down off the cross," then his death does not connect him with the suffering and oppressed. It would be similar to my decision yesterday to run 8.5 miles in 93 degrees. Yes it was painful, yes it was a miserable experience, but it was not suffering.
Rather Jesus suffered on the cross. His cry, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" reveals that the crucifixion was not a willing sacrifice, but an unjustified suffering in which Jesus was abandoned by human friends (The disciples) and even by God.
It is imparative that Jesus' death on the cross was not a willing sacrifice, because if that is true then he does not allign himself with the oppressed and those who are truly suffering. For those who are suffering, they are only able to receive reassurance from Christ if Christ's crucifixion was not by choice, but a moment of powerful weakness.
Jesus did not sacrifice himself on the cross.
If Jesus willingly chose to die on the cross, and withheld his ability to "come down off the cross," then his death does not connect him with the suffering and oppressed. It would be similar to my decision yesterday to run 8.5 miles in 93 degrees. Yes it was painful, yes it was a miserable experience, but it was not suffering.
Rather Jesus suffered on the cross. His cry, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" reveals that the crucifixion was not a willing sacrifice, but an unjustified suffering in which Jesus was abandoned by human friends (The disciples) and even by God.
It is imparative that Jesus' death on the cross was not a willing sacrifice, because if that is true then he does not allign himself with the oppressed and those who are truly suffering. For those who are suffering, they are only able to receive reassurance from Christ if Christ's crucifixion was not by choice, but a moment of powerful weakness.
Wednesday, June 08, 2005
Cooked Rice
Football season is starting and I am wondering about Jerry Rice--the greatest WR of all-time. Mostly due to his work with the greatest Quarterback of all-time.
It is my humble opinion that while "nifty" that Rice wants to keep playing when others think he should retire, he is damaging his image.
If he had retired after the 9ers, that would have been perfect.
After the Raiders--that would have worked well. It would have been similar to Emmit's Cardinals, Babe Ruth's Braves, and Joe Montana's Chiefs (don't forgot that Joe was effective in KC).
After the Seahawks--well that would have been seen as his last desperate attempt.
But now going to the Broncos without a guarenteed contract and without number 80, smells of Ricky Henderson--who by the way is still playing baseball in some semipro international league.
It will be an unfortunate day when the greatest Wide Receiver of All-Time is told that he is no longer wanted on any team, rather than retiring upon his own conditions.
Tuesday, June 07, 2005
A middle ground
I am struggling to understand Jim Wallis' full point regarding a middle ground for pro-life, pro-choice debates. Yet, I agree with him.
Like gay rights, this is the hot issue that determines one's "seriousness" as a Christian. One is either an Evangelical Conservative Christian or one is a Socially Conscerned Christian. What would happen if you combined the two?
Wallis argues for a pro-life/pro-choice political agenda which does not try to outlaw or condone all abortions. Instead the agenda attempts to minimize these difficult situations.
The two extremes argue:
1) What happens if a woman is raped, shouldn't she be able to abort that child?
2) What if you were an engaged teenage girl who suddenly got pregnant by someone other than your fiancee, in a society that would kill you for being pregnant out of wedlock. Would you allow her to have an abortion? --Well guess what you just killed Jesus.
Let's face it, death and destruction are inherent in our situation. Atrocities happen all the time. And as socially concerned, conservative Christians we should be fighting against those atrocities. Which means we address the serious concern that other raises. We proclaim a God who transforms a culture that allows rape and other situations occur which may necessitate an abortion.
Similar we stand up for the oppressed, which not only includes the fetus, but also includes women and the poor.
Rather than protesting what we are against, we should try acknowledge the others concern and attempt to minimize those situations. That is what a socially concerned conservative Christian should do...forego our selfish desire to be "right" and selflessly serve those we often oppose.
Like gay rights, this is the hot issue that determines one's "seriousness" as a Christian. One is either an Evangelical Conservative Christian or one is a Socially Conscerned Christian. What would happen if you combined the two?
Wallis argues for a pro-life/pro-choice political agenda which does not try to outlaw or condone all abortions. Instead the agenda attempts to minimize these difficult situations.
The two extremes argue:
1) What happens if a woman is raped, shouldn't she be able to abort that child?
2) What if you were an engaged teenage girl who suddenly got pregnant by someone other than your fiancee, in a society that would kill you for being pregnant out of wedlock. Would you allow her to have an abortion? --Well guess what you just killed Jesus.
Let's face it, death and destruction are inherent in our situation. Atrocities happen all the time. And as socially concerned, conservative Christians we should be fighting against those atrocities. Which means we address the serious concern that other raises. We proclaim a God who transforms a culture that allows rape and other situations occur which may necessitate an abortion.
Similar we stand up for the oppressed, which not only includes the fetus, but also includes women and the poor.
Rather than protesting what we are against, we should try acknowledge the others concern and attempt to minimize those situations. That is what a socially concerned conservative Christian should do...forego our selfish desire to be "right" and selflessly serve those we often oppose.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)