An interesting article on CBC.ca this week from Listen Up TV's Lorna Dueck on Spirituality and Credit. I am definitely a fan of Christians getting involved in media, moving up-stream of culture to have an impact on our society. I also know that there are inherent dangers -- the need to get published or broadcasted can often lead to the distortion of the gospel message, as well as the need to sensationalize what we say and write. For example, Lorna writes "I hope the church can cash in on our turmoil." Not really the best sentiment there -- pithy, though.
I can relate a little -- I was interviewed last year and at the beginning of this year regarding my position at school. In both cases, the journalist was looking for that elusive sound bite, that quote which could sum a complex idea up ever-so-neatly for people to easily digest. In the first interview, I was far too detailed to be used for quotes. However, in the second interview, I said something mildly controversial in the first sentence, and knew that was the clip they would show on the daily news. I was right. All of the other brilliant things I said were stolen right from my mouth by the interviewer, and used as her monologue piece, then - CUT! - straight to my contentious line. Oh well, I suppose it was worth my 15 sec. of fame!
Showing posts with label CBC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CBC. Show all posts
10/12/2008
8/28/2008
Food
I've read a couple of recent studies on food which have me thinking.
The first is a CBC article on food consumption as it relates to portion size. The study found that people eating smaller portion sizes were likely to eat more food than those eating bigger portions when it comes to snacking. The most fascinating idea in this study, though, is the psychology behind the eating choices. When faced with little temptations, people were more likely to give in, more often, and to a greater degree. Those faced with the choice of a large temptation were more likely to limit their complicity or completely resist the temptation. The real question for me is worth long term study: Do those "small snackers" eventually turn into "big snackers"? That is, if you keep giving in to little temptations, will you eventually be more susceptible to large temptations?
The second study looked at Kraft Dinner (Mac and Cheese for the uninitiated), and its perception by varied socio-economic groups. Interestingly, rich people think KD is an acceptable meal - tasty, filing, nutritious - to be donated to a food bank. The poor disagree. It is not tasty if it is all you can afford. Not to mention that the good taste often comes from the butter and milk added, which are not available to most poor families! Most organizations say that the best thing to do if you are planning to give to the food bank is to give money, or to give these items:
The first is a CBC article on food consumption as it relates to portion size. The study found that people eating smaller portion sizes were likely to eat more food than those eating bigger portions when it comes to snacking. The most fascinating idea in this study, though, is the psychology behind the eating choices. When faced with little temptations, people were more likely to give in, more often, and to a greater degree. Those faced with the choice of a large temptation were more likely to limit their complicity or completely resist the temptation. The real question for me is worth long term study: Do those "small snackers" eventually turn into "big snackers"? That is, if you keep giving in to little temptations, will you eventually be more susceptible to large temptations?
The second study looked at Kraft Dinner (Mac and Cheese for the uninitiated), and its perception by varied socio-economic groups. Interestingly, rich people think KD is an acceptable meal - tasty, filing, nutritious - to be donated to a food bank. The poor disagree. It is not tasty if it is all you can afford. Not to mention that the good taste often comes from the butter and milk added, which are not available to most poor families! Most organizations say that the best thing to do if you are planning to give to the food bank is to give money, or to give these items:
- Pasta Sauce
- Juice (1 litre)
- Canned Tomatos
- Baby Formula with Iron
- Pasta
- Canned Fish
- Peanut Butter
- Baby Food (jars)
- Canned Soup
- Canned Beans in Tomato Sauce
- Canned Meat
- Canned Fruit
- Canned Vegetables
- Rice
- Processed Cheese (jar)
3/22/2008
"Worship Wars"
I couldn't pass up the chance to comment on this article posted on CBC.ca earlier this week about "Worship Wars" in churches. Having now attended church (of the evangelical protestant variety) for over 25 years, I can say that I've been around a few controversies in the churches that I have attended. I will agree with this statement from the article: arguments over music and other styles of worship are often hotly (and very selfishly) contested.
A little history: Much of the problems with worship comes from a split in churches over what constitutes "acceptable" worship to God. This is actually a crucial point for Christians, as there are examples in the history of Israel recorded in the Old Testament of the bible where people (Nadab & Abihu, Uzzah) are struck dead for worshiping God incorrectly.
There are two competing principals which Christians tend to adhere to: the normative and regulative principles of worship. The normative principle essentially says that if God doesn't prohibit a form of worship in the bible, and it benefits the people and unity of the church, then that form of worship is acceptable in church. Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglican/Episcopalian, Lutheran, Methodist, some Baptist, Pentacostal/Charismatic churches tend to hold this position, meaning that they incorporate all sorts of drama, music, etc. into their worship services with no problem. Reformed, Presbyterian, and some Baptist congregations follow the more strict regulative principle which states that the basic elements of a worship service have to be instituted by God, as seen in the bible (specifically the New Testament).
Both beliefs can be taken to extremes, where in some cases a person walking in the door of a church following the normative principle would wonder if it believed in God at all, and in others, the regulative principle cuts out all songs, singing, instruments and leaves one wondering "how do I express my love for God, if I have no way to respond to this worship service?"
The point of a worship service should be to hold up how great and worthy God is, and allow us humans to respond to that greatness. It may inspire awe, love, thankfulness, respect, repentance, even fear. Then we must respond with our hearts and minds, voices and bodies.
A little history: Much of the problems with worship comes from a split in churches over what constitutes "acceptable" worship to God. This is actually a crucial point for Christians, as there are examples in the history of Israel recorded in the Old Testament of the bible where people (Nadab & Abihu, Uzzah) are struck dead for worshiping God incorrectly.
There are two competing principals which Christians tend to adhere to: the normative and regulative principles of worship. The normative principle essentially says that if God doesn't prohibit a form of worship in the bible, and it benefits the people and unity of the church, then that form of worship is acceptable in church. Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglican/Episcopalian, Lutheran, Methodist, some Baptist, Pentacostal/Charismatic churches tend to hold this position, meaning that they incorporate all sorts of drama, music, etc. into their worship services with no problem. Reformed, Presbyterian, and some Baptist congregations follow the more strict regulative principle which states that the basic elements of a worship service have to be instituted by God, as seen in the bible (specifically the New Testament).
Both beliefs can be taken to extremes, where in some cases a person walking in the door of a church following the normative principle would wonder if it believed in God at all, and in others, the regulative principle cuts out all songs, singing, instruments and leaves one wondering "how do I express my love for God, if I have no way to respond to this worship service?"
The point of a worship service should be to hold up how great and worthy God is, and allow us humans to respond to that greatness. It may inspire awe, love, thankfulness, respect, repentance, even fear. Then we must respond with our hearts and minds, voices and bodies.
8/14/2007
Bottled H2O, the CBC, and Starbucks
Kudos to CBC.ca for their Going Green blog. I was impressed with the tactics of the (obviously) pro-green author by asking for public opinion on bottled vs. tap water. Brilliant! The whole page is full of people bashing the use of bottled water and the privatization of our natural resources -- great!
On a similar vein: The last few times that I've visited Starbucks, I've noticed their Ethos brand water, which donates a nickel from each purchase to promote the creation and development of water resources in developing countries. I applaud the desire to help those in foreign countries. But $0.05?? The bottle costs $2.30 Cdn! I could buy the same sized bottle for 99 cents at the corner store. Better yet, I could turn the tables on Starbucks and drink 5 cents worth of tap water and donate $2.25 to promote safe drinking water for those in need.
Tap water is safe for the majority of the population in the developed world. Give your money to people who really need it, Dasani (CocaCola), Aquafina (Pepsi), and Ethos (Starbucks) will survive without your misplaced charity.
(Author's Note: I don't hate Starbucks in the least. However, they have two strikes against them from me. First, I don't like hot drinks. I have NO idea what to order when I am there. A significant portion of the time I don't get anything, and look like the lame cheapskate among my friends who doesn't want to overspend for coffee. Second, Ethos is at best a poor way to raise money from the population to put a minuscule dent into a problem that needs to be addressed significantly by governments and stakeholders.)
On a similar vein: The last few times that I've visited Starbucks, I've noticed their Ethos brand water, which donates a nickel from each purchase to promote the creation and development of water resources in developing countries. I applaud the desire to help those in foreign countries. But $0.05?? The bottle costs $2.30 Cdn! I could buy the same sized bottle for 99 cents at the corner store. Better yet, I could turn the tables on Starbucks and drink 5 cents worth of tap water and donate $2.25 to promote safe drinking water for those in need.
Tap water is safe for the majority of the population in the developed world. Give your money to people who really need it, Dasani (CocaCola), Aquafina (Pepsi), and Ethos (Starbucks) will survive without your misplaced charity.
(Author's Note: I don't hate Starbucks in the least. However, they have two strikes against them from me. First, I don't like hot drinks. I have NO idea what to order when I am there. A significant portion of the time I don't get anything, and look like the lame cheapskate among my friends who doesn't want to overspend for coffee. Second, Ethos is at best a poor way to raise money from the population to put a minuscule dent into a problem that needs to be addressed significantly by governments and stakeholders.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)