When is cyberbullying ok?

A. When you write an opinion piece for Canada’s national publicly funding news website, the CBC, and call it shaming.

Kristen Pyszczyk’s title is innocent enough: “It shouldn’t be taboo to criticize parents for having too many kids.” I would hope that in any country with a tradition of free speech readers would agree that sensitive topics need to be open for debate. However, there is a difference between criticizing “parents” and singling out a specific family and justifying the cyberbullying they are currently enduring. Chip and Joanna Gaines, stars of HGTV’s Fixer Upper, are pregnant with their fifth child. This might normally be cause for congratulations but not in the mind of Pyszczyk or the comments in the Us Magazine article she links to. Pyszczyk states that “Shame is a powerful tool for changing behaviour: it’s how we introduce new and existing social conventions. It’s unfortunate that Chip and Joanna bore the brunt of changing attitudes, but let’s learn from the reaction and examine our own actions.” Call it what you want but shaming people online on CBC’s national platform is cyberbullying by another name.

She justifies her actions with the excuse: “Procreation is becoming a global public health concern, rather than a personal decision. So when people do irresponsible things like having five children, we absolutely need to be calling them out.” What about the fact that Canada’s birth rate is far below what is required for a healthy country and we need mass immigration to save our ailing social system? No problem, “we will have a steady supply of smart and talented immigrants.” I’m not sure what country Pyszczyk is living in. It can’t be Toronto, Canada because in Canada families with five children are already in the extreme minority and we have already welcomed millions of smart and talented immigrants to make up for our lack of local procreation.

Let’s call Pyszczyk back to her first principle: “Now, as a feminist, I tend to oppose any cultural conversation that involves telling a woman what to do with her body.” Of course in this case she is willing to make an exception and tell Joanna Gaines exactly what she should be doing with her body. Why is this? It’s because “women have long been told that they need to have kids to have a meaningful life, and they are groomed for motherhood from a very early age.” The deeper meaning in this statement – Joanna Gaines doesn’t know what’s best for her own body because she’s been indoctrinated since childhood to think that having kids is meaningful. I’m not sure how Mrs. Gaines ever managed to put on some socks, get out of the kitchen and co-host a TV show because obviously she hasn’t matured enough to make her own decisions about having a child. She’s needs the protection of feminists like Pyszczyk to show her the error of her ways.

I trust that as a TV personality Joanna has the mental stamina to ignore the bullies and feminists who would rather she have an abortion than carry a fifth child to term. What about the average mother or father who reads about the bullying that the Gaines have faced and sees that the CBC as implicitly endorsed the negative reaction through posting Pyszczyk’s opinion piece? I only have three kids but I have already encountered incredulous reactions. I took my son for his three month vaccinations a few months ago and while I was there I also requested the vaccination records for his sisters. After I had gotten to the third child the lady looked up at me and asked in that tone of voice “How many kids do you have?” It would seem that having even three kids today evokes a reaction. Perhaps it’s because I’m Caucasian and stereo-typically it’s only those smart and talented immigrants who have large families. I was a little taken aback and wondered what on earth made three children so unusual. Thankfully, I haven’t faced the bullying that the Gaines have encountered as most people just want to know how I do it. It’s actually quite easy when you have three wonderful children and you know one of them will grow up to solve the world’s overpopulation woes :).

To Translate or Interpret?

It seems every news outlet is reporting that the Pope has called for changes in the English translation of the Lord’s Prayer in Matthew 6:13. Some headlines are more inflammatory than others but the general idea is the same. Pope Francis told Italian TV on Wednesday evening that we shouldn’t translate it as “lead us not into temptation” but rather as “do not let us fall into temptation.” His reasoning is that “God does not lead humans to sin” but rather we fall into it on our own accord. Aside from the fact that we cannot change the original Greek or the Latin translation that Catholics value so highly we are specifically told in Matthew 4:1 that

Matthew 4:1 “Τότε °ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἀνήχθη ⸂εἰς τὴν ἔρημον ὑπὸ τοῦ πνεύματος⸃ πειρασθῆναι ὑπὸ τοῦ διαβόλου.”
“Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil.”

 

 

Matthew 6:13 “μὴ εἰσενέγκῃς ἡμᾶς εἰς πειρασμόν, ἀλλὰ ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ.”
“And lead us not into temptation. But deliver us from the evil one” [NIV]
“Et ne nos inducas in tentationem, sed libera nos a malo” [Biblia Sacra Juxta Vulgatam Clementinam.]
“and do not subject us to the final test, but deliver us from the evil one” [New American Bible – American Catholic Bible translated from the original languages]

The same word “tempt/temptation” is used in his prayer in 6:13. I suppose Francis could argue that Jesus is God incarnate and thus God is not tempting a human but that seems disingenuous to me. Clearly God is the active agent in Matthew 4:1 so whatever it means, it doesn’t mean that he wasn’t tempted by God. This is also theologically necessary because in Hebrews 4:15 we are told that “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin.”

οὐ γὰρ ἔχομεν ἀρχιερέα μὴ δυνάμενον συμπαθῆσαι ταῖς ἀσθενείαις ἡμῶν, πεπειρασμένον δὲ κατὰ πάντα καθʼ ὁμοιότητα χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας.

If Jesus is seen as holy and without the original sin that we all possess (thanks Augustine) which leads us to be tempted in a way categorically different from him AND God does not tempt us in the same way as Jesus was in Matthew we have a disconnect with Hebrews. We would also do well to read 1 Corinthians 10:12-13:

“12 So, if you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don’t fall! 13 No temptation has overtaken you except what is common to mankind. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can endure it.”

The Greek word can also mean tested but whatever the origin of the temptation we are assured that it is nothing special to us and is not overwhelming. God is firmly in control and he controls the “level” of temptation that we face as well. Clearly we are told that we can bear whatever temptation and a way through is provided, just as Jesus survived the temptations in the wilderness by relying on God’s Word. Should we not read the Bible for what it says, rather than try to interpret it for people through translation? Of course the “orthodox corruption” of Scripture began early and the Catholic Church has a long history of protecting scripture from the masses. Perhaps Pope Francis should be repenting for that rather than falling into translation temptation. As leader of the largest Christian group on earth it is surely unhelpful to call the veracity of the Bible into question, English translation or not.

Update: I see that Daniel Wallace has a response with more details regarding the various manuscripts, translations and reasons why Francis’s recommendation is unwise.

Alcohol, Gambling, the Big Numb and Big Money

CBC seems to be running a series this week on our governments’ reliance on sin taxes to balance their budgets. Neil Macdonald kicks things off with an opinion piece: “Want to save a ton of money? Try Pigovian tax avoidance.” My dad always called them sin taxes but I suppose Pigovian Tax sounds more academic and less judgemental. There is also a subtle distinction in meaning as you’ll see if you read the links.

Next we have a series of articles by Clare Hennig explaining the damage that alcohol addiction is causing in British Columbia. There’s Wasted lives: The cost of alcohol addiction and Wasted lives: Overcoming alcohol addiction, surviving the holiday season.

In addition I think we should add gambling which provides massive revenue to Canadian governments at all levels. CBC’s Fifth Estate had another article on the problem that casinos are not stopping people from gambling even after they sign up to be excluded from casinos. A takeaway: “The OLG [Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation] brought in more than $7 billion dollars in gross revenue last year — $2.2 billion of that went straight into government coffers.”

It used to be that prohibition sought to eliminate the problems caused by alcoholism and gambling. Now government budgets are dependent on “sin taxes” and gambling proceeds to balance. Now instead of serving the people by protecting them from themselves in some paternal fashion they spend millions advertising these very vices in hopes of increasing the revenue base. I’m not sure a day goes by without my seeing advertising for Lotto 6/49 or Max. I suppose making cigarettes less popular has meant that revenue must be increased elsewhere. Macdonald also points out that the liquor control propagation boards are endlessly flogging special wines, etc. in an attempt to boost sales and profits.

So where are we going with Marijuana in Canada? We’ve seen that government can’t be left in control of controlling alcohol or gambling. Why should we think that they will do any different once marijuana becomes legal? It won’t be enough to merely have it available for sale – they’ll have to ensure that it sells well and that they provide enough variety for every consumer and that it’s available in more locations, such as the local Safeway which now has a large wine collection. Hmmm.

What effect does religion have?

Firefox introduced me to Mustafa Akyol’s article Does Religion Make People Moral? which was in the NY Times on November 28. He is a Turkish author bemoaning the path his country is currently taking. He believes that the religious leadership in Turkey is not providing the people with a proper moral compass, although theologically they are supposed to. A couple of days ago Slashdot‘s quip of the day was “I judge a religion as being good or bad based on whether its adherents become better people as a result of practicing it. – Joe Mullally, computer salesman”

Both of these assume that the author has some kind of view from nowhere which provides him with the ability to judge the morality of religion. What basis should we use to judge a religion’s morality? Akyol says that “Religion can work in two fundamentally different ways: It can be a source of self-education, or it can be a source of self-glorification. Self-education can make people more moral, while self-glorification can make them considerably less moral.” Religion can certainly educate people but many religions throughout history have educated people do to inherently evil things in the name of god and those within that sphere of religion considered it moral. In other words, there can be horrendous evil done by religious people without any desire for self-glorification. Moreover, seeking self-glorification through religion can create something which Akyol would probably consider to be beneficial. Call this the Oprahfication of religion.

What effect does religion have? I think that all religions reinforce group dynamics, power structures, ethics and morality. This is true even in cases where religious adherents act in ways completely contrary to the founders’ intentions. Akyol brings in Jesus Christ, introducing him as a Jewish Rabbi:

An exceptional Jewish rabbi who lived two millenniums ago, Jesus of Nazareth, spotted this problem. Those practicing Pharisees who are “confident of their own righteousness and look down on everybody else,” he declared, are not really righteous. Sinners who regret their failures, he said, are more moral than the pious who boast.

The Bible also says that the people were amazed at the teaching of Jesus because he spoke as one who has authority and not as their own teachers of the law (Mark 1:22; Matthew 7:29). When Jesus was about to leave the Earth to be taken up to heaven he met with his 11 disciples and gave them this message: “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

C.S. Lewis made the statement some years ago that either this is true or Jesus was insane. Can he really be viewed as a great moral teacher if he believed these things? Some Christians says that they don’t have a religion but rather a relationship because in contrast to other belief systems that rely on rules, codified laws, prophets, chemical stimulants, etc., Christianity is solely about being in relationship with God through Jesus Christ. Of course Muslims reject the idea that Jesus is the sole way for humanity to be in relationship with God. Unfortunately, this neuters Christianity’s power to change people and truly make them moral not just in principle according to the latest ideas of humanity, but truly as Creations created in the Image of God. Devoid of this power, as provided by His Holy Spirit, Christianity would indeed just be another religion susceptible to the whims of those seeking power and self-glorification. This has been the case, particularly at certain times in history but this is against the teachings of Jesus, rather than in accord with them. It is for this reason that the Reformation was so important at the time and continues to be important today. It is essential that everyone have access to Jesus and his teachings that they may be truly moral and not just moral according to popular opinion as it was in his day.

Conscientious people of every religious background should examine their religion in the light of the teachings of Jesus and the general revelation that God has provided in this world. Only in this way will they reject the desires of humanity to turn away from our Creator and impose toxic power structures on his beloved Creations. Jesus said that if you knock you will receive and that the Father always gives good gifts to his children. Let us seek those gifts and in so doing reap the Fruit of the Spirit rather than the lusts of the flesh (Galatians 5). In this way religion can show us how far we are from the Perfect God and our great need for the Salvation that comes through Jesus alone.

Why religion is so important in science education

The new Firefox Quantum recently promoted an article to me entitled “Why philosophy is so important in science education.” It details the importance of studying philosophy if you want to be a well informed scientist. Many of the reasons given there also apply to religion and I think the scientific academy is even more reluctant to give religion a place in science than they are philosophy as Subrena Smith details. However, the history of modern science isn’t grounded in atheistic philosophy but the work of those who believed in a Creator God; namely Jews, Christians and Muslims.

What is it about monotheism that promoted scientific discipline? First and foremost those who believe in a Creator believe that the universe is the product of a single creative mind and as such it is orderly and began at a single point in the past. This presumption of orderliness underlies the scientific method at its most basic foundation. All experiments must be reproducible by any scientist, anywhere, at any time using the same equipment and given the same variables. A failure to reproduce an experiment means that the results cannot be published because they are questionable at best. If our universe wasn’t presumed to be orderly and acting according to certain “laws” then no such verifiability would be required or possible.

There was a movement in the 1970s to show that the “new physics” was proof of the eastern religious worldview. E.g. Fritjof Capra’s The Tao of Physics, Robert M. Pirsig’s Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance and Gary Zukav’s The Dancing Wu-Li Masters. However, as time has passed their models for viewing the world through an eastern lens have faded from popularity and been replaced in the popular imagination of technology gurus by the concept that perhaps we are living in a giant computer simulation (presumably not one designed by God) or that we are in only one of a multitude of universes. Meanwhile, day to day work in every branch of science continues to hinge on the universe being a singular orderly entity where our knowledge describes with certitude how things work in a reproducible manner.

Smith concludes her article with the following call to action:

Our scientist colleagues should continue to teach the fundamentals of science, but they can help by making clear to their students that science brims with important conceptual, interpretative, methodological, and ethical issues that philosophers are uniquely situated to address, and that far from being irrelevant to science, philosophical matters lie at its heart.

I’m not sure if Smith would allow religion a place within the discipline of philosophy but surely scholars of religion (of history of religions, theology, new religions, etc.) are uniquely situated to address the issues that she has raised. Can you imagine a class entitled “What does Thomas Aquinas have to do with Thomas Kuhn?”

Wm Paul Young and Latin this Time

I continue to read Young’s book, Lies We Believe About God, and today came across an attempt to use the Latin etymology of the word ‘religion’ to make a point. The chapter is concerned with the lie “God created my religion.” Here is his statement:

The word religion derives from two Latin words, the prefix re- meaning “back” or “again” and –ligio, referring to “something that binds one thing to another.” Religion is my attempt to bind myself back to God—a noble gesture, but one doomed from the start and quite impossible. What began as a relationship with a living Jesus often devolves into a religion, defined by what we do: external activities, posing, right words, clothes, holy gestures, hushed tones.

This is the fourth time Young has delved into ancient languages and the first time he has used Latin to try and make his point. We have several problems here that immediately spring to mind. First, as we’ve discussed before, a word’s etymology has no bearing on its current usage, nor does a word’s current usage prove anything about what a word meant in the past. Secondly, the word ‘religion’ refers to all religions and not just those who believe that there is a God to whom they can rebind themselves. Third, the word religion probably doesn’t actually derive from “re” and “-ligio” but rather from “re -lego,” which is to “read again.” Wikipedia is actually helpful in providing a detailed discussion of the debate. Or for those of you who prefer scholarly sources there is this 1912 article, “The Etymology of Religion” in the Journal of the American Oriental Society.

Finally, the Christian usage of religion = re-bind can be traced back to Lactantius (c. 250 – c. 325). Here is what he had to say in Divinae institutiones, IV, 28:

What, then, is it? Truly religion is the cultivation of the truth, but superstition of that which is false. And it makes the entire difference what you worship, not how you worship, or what prayer you offer. But because the worshippers of the gods imagine themselves to be religious, though they are superstitious, they are neither able to distinguish religion from superstition, nor to express the meaning of the names. We have said that the name of religion is derived from the bond of piety, because God has tied man to Himself, and bound him by piety; for we must serve Him as a master, and be obedient to Him as a father.

Lactantius, “The Divine Institutes,” in Fathers of the Third and Fourth Centuries: Lactantius, Venantius, Asterius, Victorinus, Dionysius, Apostolic Teaching and Constitutions, Homily, and Liturgies, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. William Fletcher, vol. 7, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1886), 131.

Young makes the same point as Lactantius about it not mattering how you worship or what prayer you offer. However, given what Young has written about the nature of God I don’t think he would be comfortable with Lactantius’ language of serving God as our master and being obedient to him as a father.

 

Categorical accusers?

I was reading Wm. Paul Young’s latest book, Lies We Believe About God, yesterday and came across an interesting point that he makes using the Greek word κατήγορος. Here is the full quote:

The New Testament was originally written in common Greek—Koine Greek (most of it). Guess what the Greek word for accuse is, as in “the Satan is an accuser”? (see Revelation 12:10). It is kategoro, from which we get the English word categorize. It means to put something or someone into a group to categorize them. We do this all the time, not always improperly, either. But when such categorizations carry an implicit judgment of value and worth, we are joining the adversary of our humanity, the Satan. Entering into divisive accusation reduces if not disintegrates the unity of our common humanity, and we become butchers of the Body of Christ.

They say that a little Greek is a dangerous thing and I think in this case it is. I’m not sure that Young’s tangent was at all helpful in making his point in this chapter. There are several problems with his conjecture, not the least is running afoul of the semantic anachronism fallacy that Carson warned us of in my post of two days ago.

I looked up Revelation 12:10 of course and then did a search on κατήγορος. I see that it is a hapax legomenon, meaning that this noun appears only once in the New Testament. The verb which appears in the same verse is used 23 times in the NT. We immediately run into a problem in that this word is seldom used and below is the complete entry from LSJ where you’ll see that it never means category:

κατήγορος, ὁ, accuser, Hdt.3.71, S.Tr.814, And.4.16, Lys.7.11, Pl.Ap.18a (pl.), Apoc.12.10, etc.; δημόσιος κ. public prosecutor, PFlor.6.6 (iii A.D.); betrayer, φρονημάτων ἡ γλῶσσʼ ἀληθὴς γίγνεται κ. A.Th.439; ἀμέλειά ἐστι σαφὴς ψυχῆς κ. κακῆς X.Oec.20.15; πνεῦμα ὧν κατήγορον, .. δρόμοις [ἡ φύσις] ἐκβιᾶται κατηγορέειν what the respiration reveals, Hp.de Arte12. Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, et al., A Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), 927.

The word from which we get our English word “category” is actually a word with similar spelling: κατηγορία. This word is used 3x in the NT (Jn 18:29; 1 Tim 5:19; Tit 1:6). and is translated as “charges, accusation, charge.” Our English word “category” comes from its use in Logic. Again LSJ is helpful:

κατηγορία, Ion. -ίη, ἡ, accusation, Hdt.6.50, etc.; opp. αἰτία (expostulaton), Th.1.69; opp. ἔπαινος, ib.84; opp. ἀπολογία, Arist.Rh.1358b11; τὴν κ. ποιεῖσθαι Antipho 6.10, And.1.6; ὡς ὑβοίζοντος κ. ἐποιοῦντο X.An.5.8.1; κ. ἐγένοντο πολλαὶ τῶν Ἀθηναίων charges were made against .., Id.HG2.1.31; κατηγορίαι κατά τινος γεγόνασιν Isoc.5.147; εἰ .. ἐπὶ τοῖς πεπραγμένοις κατηγορίας ἔχω I am liable to accusation, D.18.240.
II. in Logic, predication, Arist.Metaph.1007a35, etc.: pl., Id.APo.84a1; esp. affirmative predicaton, opp. στέρησις, Id.APr.52a15; ἄπορον ἐν κ. Stoic.2.93.
2. predicate, Arist.Metaph.1004a29, 1028a28, al., Epicur.Ep.1p.23 U., etc.
3. more freq., category, head of predicables, Arist.Top.103b20 (ten), APo.83b16, Ph.225b5 (eight), Metaph.1068a8 (seven), cf. EN1096a29. Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, et al., A Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), 927.

You can see that II.3 explains how we got the English word category from this Greek word but it really doesn’t help Young make his point because this wasn’t the word used in Revelation 12:10 and John surely didn’t intend to make a connection to categorising people in an inappropriate way.

I hesitate to criticise Young for this inappropriate use of Greek but I think he needs to rethink his use of this verse especially given the gravity of his purpose. The lie that he wants to dispel in this chapter is “God is a Christian” and given the wow factor of his assertion that this is a lie he needs to be rock solid in his argumentation.

Semantic range of the word Dynamite

Yesterday I provided Carson’s quote re. the word dynamite and the Greek word dunamis which is used 119 times in the New Testament and is translated variously as “miracle,” “power,” “ability,” etc. However, in Carson’ objection to preachers’ use of the comparison of God’s power to dynamite he neglects to mention the semantic range of both dunamis and dynamite.

Obviously dynamite means the chemical compound that blows things up but it also means anything powerful, exciting, dangerous, etc. Obviously no preacher is using dunamis/dynamite comparing the explosive properties of dynamite to God’s power of the gospel that brings salvation to everyone that believes. By restricting the semantic range of the English word dynamite Carson makes his point clear but at the expense of the ordinary linguistic use of the word.

New Testament Dynamite? Hilarious.

I just reread D.A. Carson’s take on dynamite in the New Testament and did a search of my Logos Bible Software library for dynamite NEAR dunamis and came up with quite a haul. Here’s Carson’s full comment:

Semantic anachronism Pages 33–34
But the problem has a second face when we also add a change of language. Our word dynamite is etymologically derived from δύναμις (dynamis, power, or even miracle). I do not know how many times I have heard preachers offer some p 34 such rendering of Romans 1:16 as this: “I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the dynamite of God unto salvation for everyone who believes”—often with a knowing tilt of the head, as if something profound or even esoteric has been uttered. This is not just the old root fallacy revisited. It is worse: it is an appeal to a kind of reverse etymology, the root fallacy compounded by anachronism. Did Paul think of dynamite when he penned this word? And in any case, even to mention dynamite as a kind of analogy is singularly inappropriate. Dynamite blows things up, tears things down, rips out rock, gouges holes, destroys things. The power of God concerning which Paul speaks he often identifies with the power that raised Jesus from the dead (e.g., Eph. 1:18–20); and as it operates in us, its goal is εἰς σωτηρίαν (eis som tērian,“unto salvation,” Rom. 1:16, KJV), aiming for the wholeness and perfection implicit in the consummation of our salvation. Quite apart from the semantic anachronism, therefore, dynamite appears inadequate as a means of raising Jesus from the dead or as a means of conforming us to the likeness of Christ. Of course, what preachers are trying to do when they talk about dynamite is give some indication of the greatness of the power involved. Even so, Paul’s measure is not dynamite, but the empty tomb. In exactly the same way, it is sheer semantic anachronism to note that in the text “God loves a cheerful giver” (2 Cor. 9:7) the Greek word behind “cheerful” is ἱλαρόν (hilaron) and conclude that what God really loves is a hilarious giver. Perhaps we should play a laugh–track record while the offering plate is being circulated.

D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, 2nd ed. (Carlisle, U.K.; Grand Rapids, MI: Paternoster; Baker Books, 1996), 33–34.

In Logos I got 126 results in 60 articles in 53 resources which is a fair number but as Carson says “I don’t know how many times I have offer it in connection with Romans 1:16. Some of those hits are making the same point as Carson but many are committing the semantic anachronism he is warning us about.

Here’s my favourite of the ones I saw in my library: “worship can be dynamite, which is exactly what God has promised us. Dynamite comes from the Greek word dunamis, which is the word used in Acts 1:8 when Jesus promises, ‘You will receive power (dunamis) when the Holy Spirit has come upon you.'” Bruce Larson and Lloyd J. Ogilvie, Luke, vol. 26, The Preacher’s Commentary Series (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Inc, 1983), 116.

What’s in your library? Is it dynamite?

Lent – Are you giving something up or adding something to spend more time with God?

March 1 is Ash Wednesday this year which marks the beginning of the season of Lent. Evangelicals have something on an ambivalent relationship with Lent, rightly rejecting its association with penance but also not taking the opportunity to seek a closer relationship with God. There are two basic themes to Lent. You can either give up something that you enjoy or you can add something such as engaging in a spiritual discipline: reading the Bible more each day, praying more, etc.

Back in 1999 I gave up watching TV for Lent and it changed my life. To this day I don’t watch TV or movies on a regular basis and there aren’t any TV shows that I feel the need to watch. This has given me a lot of free time to do other things like read, spend time with others and most importantly with God. I think it also means I am often out of the loop culturally (which I believe can be a good thing). These days you might decide to give up Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, etc. You can use all that extra time to pray or read the Bible and devotional material. I would recommend you read the gospels and I’m currently reading A.W. Tozer as my devotional material. He wrote quite a while ago but most of his material is still spot on.

Blessings on You this Lenten season. May you seek and find a closer relationship with God in Christ Jesus through Holy Spirit.