Avdat

Open letter

Dear members of First Presbyterian Church,

I understand that you are upset that a local businessman wants to establish a Coyote Ugly Saloon in your neighborhood.  I can sympathize with your bewilderment and misgivings.  I too did not know that a woman's navel could be pressed into service as a shot glass until I became more familiar with this establishment, thanks to the Charlotte Observer handy link to their website.  Like many of you, I am a happily married man who has engaged in monogamous, procreative sex.  In short, Coyote Ugly is not my scene. 

That said, I am perplexed by your determination to strangle this new business in the crib.  We mainline Christians are chronically shot on young adult members.  A bar like Coyote Ugly is bound to bring gobs of young adults to the very gates of your facility.  This is an opportunity for ministry, an opportunity that I fear you may be missing. 

You have to wonder if the thrill of slurping tequila out of a scantily clad drunk woman's belly button is worth the one-two punch of shame and a raging hangover that inevitably finds its mark the day after a night at Coyote Ugly.  More to the point, what's the real attraction of such a bar?  Boredom?  Pain?  Loneliness? 

The Church does provide a way to scratch all three itches.  As for boredom, there is the adventure of following Jesus Christ in a world that rejects his ways of justice, peace and fidelity to the Father. 

Regarding pain, there is a balm in Gilead.  The Spirit is our Comforter and ministers to us in the Word and the Sacraments and in casseroles baked and shoulders to cry on. 

Concerning loneliness, the unity of the Spirit and the bond of peace that prevails among disciples is certainly more healthy and enduring than the one-night stands that sprout like weeds in springtime at Coyote Ugly Saloon.  Why, I met my wife at Church!

So, why not let the lost sheep of our generation, the lonely, the hurting and the bored, congregate in your neighborhood, and offer them something better?  Rather than packing out the City Council meeting, why not establish a Coyote Ugly ministry?  Why not beef up your offerings of A.A. groups, and singles ministries? 

It has been done before.  Jesus showed up for worship on the Sabbath, but he also ate in the homes of sinners.  Please forgive me for appealing to that hackneyed wrist bracelet, but there's no doubting what Jesus would do and where he would go if a Coyote Ugly Saloon was established in his community.

The Son of Man came to seek out and save the lost.

Cloned meat

Another great reason to be a vegetarian!

I had to get out of the car before the entire above-linked NPR article finished.  So maybe I should go listen to it right now before I blog about it.  Nah.  I'll just shoot my mouth off right now!

So what if it's safe?  Do we need to clone beef cattle, dairy cattle, swine and chickens?  It's not like I'm starving, and I'm not sure how this helps people who are starving.  Who benefits from cloning livestock?  This seems to be yet another great example of what I'll call "technologism:"  If we can do it; we must.  We just can't seem to help ourselves.

We already do a good bit of genetic modification though hybridization and selective breeding for specific traits.  But there's a downside even to that low-tech genetic tinkering--the disappearance of heirloom varieties, and a general shrinking of the gene pool.  That's why Dr. Bradshaw says we should all give him a hand and plant his Turkey Gizzard Beans every summer, so that when the great die-out comes (HT--Lee), it won't be totally on the backs of the good guys in Clemson University greenhouses to fashion a vegetable Noah's ark.  Plus, they're durn tasty!

If in a few years we're all basically grilling the same hamburger patty, well, that can't be good, can it?

UPDATE:  Lee answers my question:  Surprise!  It's not for the animals.

Justice v. charity

Kate Sheppard says that food banks are bad.

I'm not so sure.  Face time with the poor is important.  Not that face time with your state legislator is unimportant.  I don't like seeing complimentary strategies pitted against each other.

And while the Edwards Thanksgiving recipes may indeed be a "cheesy" campaign tactic, my family might actually be eating the "Joe Trippi down on the farm stuffing" on Thursday.  So do click through and shower the people you love with love...

Tastes Kinda Like Fish

Down here, we consider goat to be a form of seafood.

Guess the next great debate will be, "Are you still a vegetarian if you eat a little goat meat from time to time?"

You Can't Handle the Truth

Bear with me for a long anecdote:

Our oldest son is autistic.  He takes an anti-psychotic medication to help control his aggression.  A side effect of the medication is increased appetite.  He's really put on the pounds, so our psychiatrist referred us to a nutritionist for some counsel on how to manage his weight.

She was quite helpful, and her nutrition tips, tailored to our (mostly) vegetarian diet are already starting to pay off for him.  He's not losing weight, and, truth be told, you hardy ever want a child to lose weight.  But he's growing into his weight. 

At yesterday's appointment, she mentioned the "China diet."  Virtually no meat, lots of soy and fresh fruits and vegetables.  Rural Chinese have lower incidence of heart disease and colon cancer than anyone else in the world.  At the other end of the spectrum are the Finns, who receive a lot of animal protein and fat from a diet high in dairy products.  The U.S. is 2/3s of the way up the graph.

I asked her about the so-called "Mediterranean Diet," lots of garlic, olive oil, fish, poultry and wine.  She replied that the existence of these two diets in the public consciousness actually represents a difference in philosophy among scientists.  There's no doubt, she said, that the "China diet" (i.e. vegetarianism) is healthier than the Mediterranean diet.  But the Mediterranean diet gets pushed by scientists because they lack faith in Americans' willingness to go meatless.

She added that agribusinesses favor public competition and uncertainty over which diet is healthiest.  Sales of beef, pork and other meat products tend to thrive in a climate of uncertainty.  (She was a Health reporter for a local TV station before she got into private practice as a nutritionist).

This is not unlike the mainline pastor's dilemma of facing a middle class American congregation armed with some of the best biblical scholarship available in the world.  How much truth can they handle on a given Sunday?  Or on accumulated Sundays?  Like scientists pushing the Mediterranean diet, a lot of us preach a gospel of personal decency and philanthropy, knowing full well that that vision is a partial truth, but doubting our and their willingness to embody the full truth.

We Made the News!

Sort of.  There's a jar of peanut butter in our trash can with the 2111 serial number. 

I mean, what's the odds?  Maybe I sould start playing Scratchers.

Vegetarians as Good Stewards

Sky Bison has preempted this here post with these here comments last week, but I will plod along, running out this thread on vegetarianism. 

I grew up in the country next to a field that was planted in a rotation of corn, beans and winter wheat.  My Dad was an ag and shop teacher, the FFA adviser at every high school at which he taught.  Yet, somehow I never processed the basic fact that the vast majority of field crops are grown to feed animals rather than human beings until I lived in a farming community in Missouri for three years.

I was embarrassed by my ignorance, but once I'd been clued in, I had to wonder:  Does it make sense to put everything between the Appalachians and the Rockies to the plow in order to feed livestock?  OK, the land is feeding people to the extent that we eat what eats those crops.  But,

• given that we can all pretty well get along without meat,
• and given that habitat destruction puts a lot of pressure on many species of plants and animals,
• and given the numbers of people starving in the world today,
• and given the vast quantities of fossil fuels and chemical pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers that support the current regime,

does this kind of food production make much sense?

It is possible to raise livestock in a way that doesn't rely on chemicals, or fossil fuels and actually creates topsoil rather than depletes it.  The latest Christian Century has a fascinating article about one such farmer in Virginia.  What the article doesn't state is the cost of his organic, sustainable meat.  I'm sure it's expensive.

And that's the way it should be.  Given that our need for meat is next to our need for fats, sweets and oils, and given that modern meat is so cheap largely because the costs are hidden as externalities, a good stewardship would seem to insist that we eat meat rarely, if at all, and that we eat meat that's at the end of a production process that treads as lightly as possible on the land, air and water.

And this is where I come down on the issue.  I think that, in the present times, meat is an allowable but rare treat.  But a sausage biscuit for breakfast, a Quarter Pounder for lunch, and roast beef for dinner, seven days per week, 365 days per year is bad for your health, more than the environment can bear, and really an affront to people who will go to bed hungry.

Putting the issue this way leaves people scratching their heads.  Stewardship, we think, is what we do with what we've got left over after we pay our bills, our taxes, our mortgage and other credit payments, and buy our food and clothing.  But I think there's more to it than that.  It is also about making sure that life's necessities don't wind up in one's possession soaked in someone else's blood, sweat and tears.

This expansive approach to stewardship is prone to abuse.  In the same Christian Century there's another article about simple living, detailing the almost inherent fall into self-righteousness that its practitioners make.  'Tis a gift to be simple, but spending what would be the equivalent of a year's wages in many countries on a piece of Shaker furniture doesn't simplify your lifestyle.  You can't spend your way into simplicity, and disdain those who can't afford your exceptionally good taste.  So often stewardship is about drawing the line:  not making too much money, and giving away a good chunk of it.

If the Lion Can Eat Straw Like the Ox, Why Can't We?

Vegetarianism per se is not a topic the Bible addresses, but when you look at incidences of meat-eating in the scriptures, you notice funny things.  Take Genesis 1-11, the Bible's history of creation and our eponymous ancestors.  In Genesis 1 God authorizes human beings and animals to eat plants.  After the flood, Noah offers a burnt offering to the Lord, and the smell of meat on the grill pleases the Lord.  So, God permits meat-eating, but forbids eating rare meat, since the life of all living creatures is in its blood, and to consume blood would be to dishonor life.  Even when taking life is permitted, one must do so in a way that honors life, a contradiction perhaps.  Certainly it points to the, at best, ambiguous nature of killing.

Isaiah's vision of the eschaton contains vegetarian predators, the wolf and the lamb lying down together, and the lion grazing on straw like the ox.  Paul affirms that the last enemy of all to be destroyed is death itself.  Put these two together and there seems to be a vision of a transformed creation in which there is no predation.  So the benefits of the resurrection and the kingdom coming extend everywhere in creation, even into the animal kingdom.

The Resurrected Jesus eating fish with his disciples seems to mitigate this, but I think that gesture is a concession to his frightened companions, to assure them that he's not a disembodied spirit, but a flesh and blood (albeit resurrected) creature.

So it seems like eating meat may not have been what God intended for us, and it won't be a part of the Kingdom that is to come, but what about here and now?  Well, there are lots of aspects of our present creaturely existence that won't survive the Second Coming, but which we indulge in anyway.  Marriage, for instance.  Or the affairs of the State.  How much of the Kingdom is Already and how much is Not Yet is a topic that's fiercely debated on many fronts, beginning at least with Paul's letters to the Corinthians, and one silly blog post about, of all things, vegetarianism, isn't going to settle it.

But it seems like we can say this:  In the present age one cannot dismiss eating meat out of hand, but one good rationale for vegetarianism is as a sign of the kingdom to come.  Vegetarianism, like a commitment to non-violence, or a vow of celibacy, may be an appropriate witness to the new heavens and new earth that God will one day create.

Can v. Must

There's no doubt that human beings are well-suited for eating meat.  Our eyes are in the front of the head, where most predator's eyes are located, rather than on the side.  Our incisors are handy for tearing flesh off the bone.  We have a digestive system that can handle meat.

But just because we can eat meat, must we?

There's also no doubt that human beings are easily able to reproduce in their early teen years.  But just because a 14-year-old boy can impregnate a 12-year-old girl, should he?  Must he?

Arguments from nature against vegetarianism are perhaps the most dubious.  Some protest that animal-rights oriented vegetarians are dragging human beings down to the level of mere animals.  Then they turn right around and point to the carnivorous state of animal affairs, and our own carnivorous capacity, to justify eating meat.  Even mandate it.

Well, you can't have it both ways.  Are we mere animals, or aren't we?

There are good and not so good reasons for vegetarianism.  But a lot of the condemnation of vegetarians seems to be motivated by a gut-level feeling that their diet and/or lifestyle is "unnatural."  Biology isn't deterministic in that way.

Besides, as Christians we know that our nature, such as it is, is fallen nature.  But that leads to a consideration of vegetarianism and eschatology, which really deserves its own post.

Are You, Or Have You Ever Been, A Vegetarian?

Lee has written with conviction and reason about vegetarianism and animal welfare both at his former blog and at his current blog.  I'm something of a lapsed vegetarian.  I've also noticed that, next to being a Muslim, vegetarianism is the most problematic moral or ethical stance one can take in contemporary society.  For these reasons it seems good to write a series of short posts on various aspects of vegetarianism.

For this post, I'll address the health aspects of vegetarianism.  In short, protein is way, way overrated in our culture.  Adkins diet be damned!  Just take a look at the food pyramid (click to enlarge).  Complex carbohydrates, fruits and vegetables are the staples of a healthy diet.  Protein is next to sweets in terms of being a luxury, and it's rather easy to get all the protein you need from nuts and beans.

Kids do have greater protein needs than adults.  So do athletes.  But in my forays out into the general American public (i.e. shopping at Wal Mart) I don't see a whole lot of athletes.  I do see a whole lot people blown up beyond all proportion due to the double whammy of animal fat and simple carbohydrates in the typical bun and meat patty that is the staple of the modern American diet.

Now, it is a huge leap from "Meat isn't necessary to eat" to "Meat shouldn't be eaten," but since most people reject the latter proposition because they believe the opposite of the former, it's necessary to knock that fallacy down.  You don't need meat to live a healthy life.

Later, humans as meat-eating creatures, vegetarianism in the eschaton, factory farming and animal rights, stewardship of natural resources, and more!  (See, it really is for the best to break it up into a series of small posts).