Christian liberty and the doctrine of love.

I am a Christian.  I was raised in a Christian home, but I chose to make my faith my own as I matured into an adult.  My reasons for choosing to maintain a faith in Christ and belief in the Bible will warrant an entry of their own at a future date, but right now I want to discuss something else. The modern incarnation of Christianity is problematic.  To be entirely honest, I usually prefer to call myself simply "a believer," because to call one's self a Christian invites a lot of misconceptions.

I read an article this morning that greatly disturbed me.  The story came from the New York Times, and gave a piercing critique of the Trinity Broadcasting Network and its financial practices.  You can click here for the full story for as long as it is freely available.

I began the draft of this piece before I read the article, but the article provides a convenient jumping-off point for my topic.  TBN is the face of modern Christianity to much of the world; they broadcast Christian programming to much of the world.  Wherever the TBN feed is accessed, viewers see a nepotistic empire making promises of God's blessings--provided that your "love offering" is sown properly.

Modern Christianity has become irrevocably tied to the culture in which it existed.  Not even religion can exist within the environment of a profit-oriented culture without taking on aspects of such a culture.  In America, the prosperity doctrine has turned Christianity into a product.

But Christianity did not start as a product!  It was not meant to be a product!  True belief is not in the false bastardization of the real thing, but in the original!

Prosperity doctrine is a purely Western invention.  It has nothing to do with scripture or the gospel; it is the belief that individual financial success is decided in the life of believers by God based on their faith and attitude.

This line of thinking is not only non-Bliblical, but extremely narrow-minded.  If it is true that one's faith determines their financial wealth, then there are thousands of South American, African, Asian and Middle Eastern believers who must believe in a lie, because they die for their faith every day, and they do so in material poverty.

Since prosperity theology is an ignorant fabrication of what a real relationship with the Lord should be like, I would like to offer a few verses of actual scripture to remind us of what true belief is about.  There is a specific way in which the Bible tells Christians to relate to one another: through love.

Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?

And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?

Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Matthew 5:43-48

And:

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

If ye love me, keep my commandments.

John 14:12-15

And what commandments are these?

Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,

Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

This is the first and great commandment.

And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Matthew 22:35-39

These are just a few verses of many in which Christ sums up the nature of Christian living.  Christ emphasized one thing above all others: love.

Christianity is not about rules, laws or keeping a tally of rights and wrongs.  Furthermore, Christians are not given the authority by God to judge the entire world by their own standards.  There is not even one standard given to Christians for daily living except that they be in touch with God through an active relationship of prayer and study.  If a believer is seeking God and listening for his will, He will speak into the believer's life according to the believer's needs.

This is where American Christianity falls so short of healthy understanding.  Too often, Christians never read the Bible to hear God speak into their own lives as individuals.  Instead, they wait for another teacher or personality to interpret scriptures for them and give a broad, generalized statement of what is "right" or "wrong."  Naturally, guidance comes from others within the church, but if we, as flawed human beings, rely too much on other flawed human beings for guidance instead of God and his word, we are overcomplicating matters.

Christianity, at it's core, is incredibly simple.  After Christ left the earth, the apostle, Paul was faced with a problem as a church leader.  Believers who came from traditional Jewish religious backgrounds tried to enforce Judaism on the new Greek and Roman believers, pressuring them to undergo circumcision and other strictly Jewish affirmations of faith.

Paul was completely astounded that believers anywhere could be so illogical.  When salvation is freely offered through a relationship with Christ, with nothing asked in return, why would anyone even want to try to save themselves?  Paul wrote to them on the subject?

O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?

This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?

Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain.

He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.

Galatians 3:1-6

 This ties in directly with Paul's writings to the Romans, in which he stated the case just as plainly.

I am debtor both to the Greeks, and to the Barbarians; both to the wise, and to the unwise.

So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also.

For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

Romans 1:14-18

This is where the heart of salvation lies.  And this is the part which is lost far too often in the American presentation of Christianity.

In the near-constant drive to increase service attendance, raise money or find media exposure (all laughably "in the name of the gospel"), the gospel message becomes secondary to the image of the speaking church or institution.  The Western church splintered itself into fragments through the creation of denominations, and now there is a sudden push to present some sterilized, standardized version of the gospel.  But as we trip over ourselves to undo years of judgment, are we really delivering the gospel?

Through their creation of a "church culture," the American Christian church lost the ability to effectively communicate their faith to non-believers without defaulting to the jargon and niche parlance of institutionalized (mass-marketed) belief.  Believer need to accept that the lingo of the church means little or nothing when repeated outside of the church, and adjust their language accordingly.  Not the message; the language.

The world doesn't need the language of judgement, denominationalism, salvation through works or anything other than love.  Christians are very good at speaking one way and acting another.  We speak the language of the New Testament, but our actions are as Old Testament as they can be.

Christ came to earth and literally sacrificed himself so that we don't have to justify ourselves through our own actions!  So why do we set up an unreachable standard for every person to whom we speak?  Non-believers shouldn't be judged the same way as believers; they haven't accepted the same standard for their lives.  Two people speaking different languages cannot agree on anything, because there is no understanding.

Christ spoke his words in Aramaic, but the meaning of his words always corresponded with the intent of his actions.  And what was it that Christ communicated in word and deed?  Love.

Plain and simple.

He spoke about love.  He asked for love in return.  And he told us to do the same.

All else is secondary.

Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

Acts 15:10

External Links:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/05/us/tbn-fight-offers-glimpse-inside-lavish-tv-ministry.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology

Maybe it's not just the carbs...

Last year, I went Primal.  No regrets.  Mark Sisson's book got me going and his blog remains inspirational.

However, Mark isn't the only person who writes on primal living and ancestral health.  Through expanding my knowledge of health and fitness, I have been exposed to the the ideas of other writers and bloggers who talk about the paleo and primal schools of thought.

The Primal Blueprint is a title.  It is a structured "blueprint," written by Mark Sisson, for getting into good health and losing weight.

Bear in mind the meaning of the word "blueprint"--A plan, a map, a diagram.  I most readily associate the word "blueprint" with house-building.  But as we all know, there is more than just one way to build a house.

The Primal Blueprint is Mark Sisson's blueprint.  It is based on sound research.  It is effective for weight loss and body maintenance.  It is, above all, a healthy way to live.

However, promoting this style of living is how Mark Sisson makes a living.  His books are written by and large for people with bad habits and addictions to break.  His meal plan is strictly regimented to bring the greatest results out of the greatest number of people.  He tends to use a lot of general guidelines in his blog.  That keeps his material well-reviewed and ensures that people like myself continue to refer other newcomers to his body of work.

I have followed the Primal Blueprint quite faithfully for the past six months.  But as I wrote before, Mark's books and web essays are not my only source of information.  If you read enough material, it becomes apparent that, although Mark is a larger-than-life figure in the primal/paleo movement, he represents only one school of thought.  I do not say this to denigrate Mark or his work.  Quite to the contrary, I believe that Mark has done more good than possibly any other individual in the paleo community.  But I want to explore some thoughts of my own.

If one explores the "paleo diet," The Primal Blueprint is a fairly standard first encounter.  But beyond the body-repairing information it offers for someone who is insulin-resistant and overweight, questions are rising that the paleo movement has not yet done research to answer fully.  I have a few of my own which I would like to pose at this time.

Once the body has had time to repair itself, that is, for insulin sensitivity to be restored and for the body to adapt to the ideal fat-burning state for its energy needs, are natural carbohydrates still a problem?

I ask this because Richard Nikoley has done some extremely interesting self-experimentation lately, purposefully including extra starch in his diet in the form of potatoes.  However, he has not increased his caloric intake, he has simply changed the  fat : protein : carbohydrate  ratios of his daily meals.  And he has had good results, actually seeing beneficial changes in body composition.

This is one factor which increased my curiosity on the subject.  Another was a point raised by Angelo Coppola in the last episode of his podcast, Latest in Paleo.  He has also been eating more starch each week in the form of sweet potatoes and rice, and has reported results similar to the "leaning out" described by Richard Nikoley: looser pants, increased muscle definition.

This comes after the mainstream paleo community's applying a long-standing mantra of "lower = better" in reference to carb intake.  But the movement is still relatively new.  Its influence is creeping into everything from 60 Minutes to celebrity fitness, but there have yet to be many serious studies done to provide new baselines with which to measure more specific effects.  More on that in a minute.

Is it carbs on their own, or the kind of carbs that are the problem?

The paleo diet, in its broadest definition, is simply eating the foods which our spear-weilding ancestors would have access to.  Meat, fish, fowl, vegetables, fruit, nuts.  Basically, this is a "whole foods" diet.  Foods which can be consumed in their natural state without the need for processing.  Grains are excluded from this list (yes, even whole grains) because not only do they require husking, grinding and the addition of extra ingredients to be eaten at all, the grains of today are not the same as what existed a hundred years ago, much less thousands of years ago.  And it goes without saying that the recent phenomenon of mass gluten intolerance is yet another reason to avoid grain.  I have personally found going grain-free to be the cure for my seasonal allergies.

With the exception of fruit, the paleo diet is grain-free and fairly low carb by its very nature.  But when following a regimented eating plan like The Primal Blueprint, it has been my experience that it becomes easy to demonize many natural and pleasant foods like fruit and potatoes; relegating them to "once in a while" treats.  But these foods occur naturally.  Yes, they contain sugar, and, yes, that sugar is fructose.  But, as even Dr. Lustig will readily state, fruit delivers its fructose load amidst naturally-occuring vitamins, minerals and fiber.  They contain enough caloric weight that it is simply unpleasant to gorge oneself on fruit to the point of the sugar's affects on the liver, blood sugar and deposition of fat being worse than concurrent nutrients of the fruit delivering it.

If someone is breaking long-standing food addictions, that is where The Primal Blueprint is instrumental.

Speaking from experience, when an individual changes their entire lifestyle to eat natural foods instead of processed foods, it is hard not to constantly seek out "cheats" while there is a lingering addiction to processed sugars.  Until the individual's palate returns to its "natural" state and can appreciate the full taste of natural foods, as well as the unbelievable sweetness of natural sugars in fruit, a structured meal plan, with "approved" foods and a carb count is not only helpful, one might say it is catalytic to long-term success.

The physical results of an individual's eating habits show themselves fairly readily and obviously.  But what is too often overlooked, or under-discussed, is the unhealthy mental relationship that overweight individuals maintain with food.  A popular Lao Tzu quote states that "mastering yourself is true power," and one could easily extrapolate that into an argument that if you can't master your own food consumption against the influence of a very flawed and unhealthy food culture, that is weakness.  People declare this weakness every day; telling someone about your own grain-free or paleo diet is usually met with the knee-jerk response of "I could never do that."

It takes guidance and encouragement to help people overcome the onslaught of  it, and sometimes a well-written book or a blog are all the only good influence an individual has in their life.  For beginners, a blueprint is necessary.

After the initial stages, there comes a certain point in the primal/paleo journey in which it becomes obvious to you and everyone who knows you that you have made a decision to change your life permanently toward a whole-foods approach.  This point is usually apparent when you realize that you no longer crave dark chocolate to "complete" a meal, and dairy products are seen less and less on your plate.  It is something which I would describe as a mature relationship with food.  It is a state of no longer being attached to or craving foods which are culturally mandated as "fun" or "special."  Heck, you might be so in tune with your daily needs that you ignore the old standard of "three squares a day" and only eat when you're hungry, regardless if it's a regularly-timed for breakfast lunch or dinner.  That is taking the idea of ancestral health beyond ingredients into the re-creation of habits and conditions--worthy experiments, but I digress.

Back to my point.  If one has a established a healthy relationship with food, then the allure of sugar should not spark a binge if one chooses to eat some fruit or cut into a sweet potato.  The whole idea of "ancestral living" is based on eating healthy food, and eating it according to need.  This isn't your mom's low-fat crash diet; it is not about eating healthy food "most of the time" so as to feel better about a weekly nosedive into pizza, nachos and cheap beer.

Claiming a mature relationship with what and how you eat also implies that you are not going to habitually overeat.  If natural sugar or starch is part of the meal, it should be factored in as part of the meal, not a superfluous addition that puts one "over the edge" of being full.  Remove the desire to binge by including rewarding foods in daily meals.

Finally, if grain-free, whole foods are your first choice, regardless of carbohydrate content, this means that many of the studies which have been conducted about carbohydrates and weight gain no longer apply to you.  To my knowledge, the accepted baseline studies have never been conducted from subjects who have lived any significant part of their lives on a whole foods diet.  Therefore, their carbohydrate intake was largely from grains and sugars.  The kinds of carbohydrates offered to the body by a sandwich bun or a sack of Fritos are much different than those offered from a berries, bananas or yams.  The last three all have benefits to the human body that extend far beyond quick energy or post-workout glycogen replenishment.  Furthermore, they are not full of synthetic, compound ingredients.  The only ingredient in the last three foods are the foods themselves.

Like politics, religion and virtually everything else in any human culture that exists simultaneously in the areas of philosophy and process, the paleo movement has become fragmented into contrasting ideas.

"Paleo" does not strictly mean "low-carb, ketogenic diet."

The definition of the word "paleo" literally means "old," and is most often combined with geologic or biological terms.  Hence the "Paleolithic Diet," referring to the eating habits of early humans.

This simple definition (and it truly is appallingly simple compared to many of the other ludicrous options offered to the weight and health conscious) only became fractured into its present, multi-faceted form as various new-school health and nutrition professionals have written and spoken to educate the masses on the subject.

Most books are written with weight loss in mind.  Weight loss requires insulin sensitivity.  To ensure insulin sensitivity, low-carb is ubiquitously recommended among paleo writers as the surefire way to go.

But once sensitivity is restored, and the decision has been made to eschew grains and processed non-foods, the old damage will not return.  There is also the assumption that moderation is a way of life and that food will be eaten when hungry until the individual is not hungry any more.

So are natural carbs a problem?

I've been eating right for a long time now.  At this point, it seems much more natural to eat right than it does to eat poorly.  I was at a business meeting the other night where the dinner provided for attendees was a stack of delivered pizzas.  I won't name the franchise, but I will say that I have never seen anything quite so repugnant as the overcooked slabs of dough with their scant population of cheese, sauce and toppings.  And there was a time in my life when I would have eaten an entire pizza by myself in one sitting, washed down with a sugary beverage.  Never mind the relative quality of ingredients or preparation...it's pizza, and pizza means good things are happening, right?

That was a long time ago.  My entire life is different now.  Now that the psychological chains are broken, even milder attractions don't appeal to me any more.  I readily admit to indulging occasionally, but I reserve those times for foods that are truly unique and well-made, like when a friend brought home-dipped, chocolate-covered bacon to a movie party.  With such exceptions accounted for, the other 99% of my diet is made up of naturally-occuring fats, proteins, starches and sugars.

So, last paragraph. let's see if I can make it good for a change...

Should we give some respect to our day-to-day preferences, eating a little more starch or fruit on some days and little-to-none on others?  If one is not simply stacking extra calories on top of regular intake in their starchier meals, it does not seem like an unbalanced way to live.  This is especially true when intermittent fasting is involved and leptin and insulin sensitivity is optimal.  A mature relationship with food and not fretting over natural carbohydrate consumption seems a lot more fulfilling than avoiding something as tasty and refreshing as a piece of mango because of its sugar content.

Thoughts?

External Links:

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/the-book/the-primal-blueprint/

http://freetheanimal.com/2012/03/the-moderate-carbohydrate-flu.html

http://www.latestinpaleo.com/blog/2012/4/27/latest-in-paleo-56-who-you-gonna-trust.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57407294/is-sugar-toxic/

http://hwbfitness.hubpages.com/hub/matthew-mcconaughey-workout

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/how-to-intermittent-fasting/

Internal Links:

http://stevenisbolo.wordpress.com/2012/04/15/intermittent-fasting-and-the-myth-of-three-squares-a-day/

http://stevenisbolo.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/visual-india/

Thought for the weekend: on simplicity.

I was initially going to open this post with a quote from William of Ockham, the progenator of "Occam's Razor."  However, when refreshing myself on the history of Occam's Razor, I learned that the original quote was hardly as pithy or strongly-worded as its modern incarnation.

Ockham originally wrote "entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily."  He said this in reference to the impossibiliy of proving the existence of God through pure reason.

The contemporary interpretation of Occam's statement is applied much more broadly as the "Law of Parsimony" or "Rule of Simplicity:"

"Other things being equal, a simpler explanation is better than a more complex one."

We live in a complex society.  And, sadly, it's easy to reject simple explanations when they might actually be the way to go.  I tend to harp on weight loss and nutrition, but it's hilarious how people seek out complicated answers when they simply don't want to make the changes necessary to change their lives.  "Blood type" diets?  Come on!

Relationships have become too complicated.  I don't want to always be blaming technology for everything, but a lot of the people I talk to on a regular basis allow for Facebook and social networks to influence their assumptions and interactions of and with other people more than actual, spoken conversations.

Let's not allow our perceptions of life to get in the way of life itself.  Be objective.  Be clear-headed.  Keep feelings and memories partitioned so that we can learn from our experiences instead of rewriting them in our minds.

Perhaps the best modern-day interpretation of Occam's Razor is the KISS Principle:

Keep It Simple, Stupid.

"They discovered fire."

Rowan Atkinson as Doctor Who, Richard Grant Jonathan Pryce as the master.  It doesn't get much better than that.  One-liners abound. Also, a pretty good parody of the kind of loop-the-loop writing that Steven Moffat has been doing lately.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Do-wDPoC6GM]

Visual India

Last weekend, I joined with some friends for a night of Indian food and a screening of the Criterion release of The Darjeeling Limited on blu-ray.  It was a fun night all the way around.

After traveling to India several times, (always working, never for simple tourism), I've become very attached to Indian culture.  I'm certainly not an expert, but I enjoy the food, the art, the history, and most of all, speaking with the people there.  One is hard-pressed to find kinder, gentler and more interesting people than those who live in India.

India has become popular in America over the past few years.  I think that mass notice of Bollywood and its surrounding culture has had something to do with that it.  Personally, Bollywood song-and-dance films are [very] far from my favorite genre of cinema, but I do enjoy the energy they convey.  India is incredibly well-suited for such an indigenous film industry, because the country is so amazingly visual.

The visual beauty of India almost belies the poverty and grittiness of what everyday life is really like there.  The people are so colorfully arrayed, the landscape is so varied and the traditional architecture is so nuanced that it is harder to attain bad imagery than good imagery in such an environment.

I think that its sheer visual beauty has led to many Americans falling in love with the idea of India without ever facing the country itself.  I said as much to a German backpacker I spoke to at the Delhi airport earlier this year.  She was going home after several weeks in Goa, and she said to me "I don't see many Americans traveling in India.  Why do you think that is?"

Given the amount of business we do in India, I was surprised that Americans seemed underrepresented in a vacation hotspot like Goa, but I could understand why, and said as much in my response.

"I think that most Americans like the idea of India--the colors and the food.  They just aren't too crazy about the smell."

Possibly a harsh thing to say, but I still feel it to be true on principle.  India is a shocking country to visit upon one's first arrival into a nation where the air smells like burning cow dung as much as it smells like cinnamon.

But the sheer beauty of the country, and the beauty of soul which shines out of the eyes of its people, will charm any visitor into submission.  I was reminded of this while watching The Darjeeling Limited last night.  It made me excited that Best Exotic Marigold Hotel opens in American theaters this week.  It made me ecstatic to return to India myself later this year.

The beauty of India can almost be called a gateway drug to the culture.  There is poetry in its harsh landscape and simple country dwellings.  India's cultural fabric is a frenetic tapestry of crowded streets and heart-stopping traffic; shouts of the street vendors, passive-aggressive inquiries from beggars and blindingly white smiles from inquisitive children.  The paradoxical contrast and cohesion of all these elements make it a country which lures in the curious and claims them for its own.  Whether by force of charm or the underlying mystery which such a culture presents to outsiders, India is an experience.

The principal characters in The Darjeeling Limited are so representative of how visitors are affected by the country.  That's one of the reasons why I love the film so much.

Francis (Owen Wilson) goes to "have an experience," but his purposeful strides from temple to temple, punctuated by side-trips for power adapters and painkillers hold him back from actually experiencing anything until he abandons his control issues by the end of the film..

Jack (Jason Schwartzman) distracts himself with his girlfriend in Europe and a temporary fling with a train attendant.  He allows his more carnal impulses to distract him from the larger picture of what is going on around him.  He allows the specific to totally detract from a full perspective.

And in the middle of it all is Peter (Adrien Brody), who seeks out novelties like a child, all the while resisting the responsibilities of being a father which await him at home.  He matures by the end of the film, but one wonders how he ever expected to get a cobra through customs.

As an American, it is my responsibility to represent my country and my fellow Americans in a positive way.  After all, we have set ourselves up as the guardians of world democracy, and it's the least we can do to be pleasant and teachable.  We cannot allow inconvenience, different or expectation to hold us back from visiting countries like India.

The world is huge.  Just think about it!  Consider the varying climates and cultures in India, China, Egypt, Germany, Britain!  And many people are content to spend their entire life living in one city, considering travel to be "for other people;" perhaps to be reserved as a reward given to one's self when too old to fully enjoy the experience.

Never settle for the sedentary life.  The world is there for a reason.  See it.  And visit India first.