God of the Fridge

The clear plastic egg rack is empty right now and it mocks me whenever I open the refrigerator door.

The drawer that usually contains bacon, sausages, lunchmeat and chicken is full of flour tortillas. I still haven't thought of what to put in the three cheese slots. The butter has gone AWOL, too, unless you count apple butter.

This is Great Lent and in million of homes the cooks are in a state of shock.

For Eastern Orthodox believers, Lent began all the way back on Sunday, Feb. 25, with the candlelight Forgiveness Vespers. Thus, my family is striving to follow the ancient Christian fasting traditions that ask us to shun meat and dairy products until Pascha (Easter) on April 15. This year, the Eastern and Western church calendars happen to be on the same page, which means that for Western churches Lent began with Ash Wednesday on Feb. 28.

There is more to Lent than the ritual avoidance of certain foods, forcing us to become one with our fruits and veggies. This is supposed to be a season of prayer, confession and intense worship. Lent is not a diet.

And many observe the season in different ways. Some Western believers, such as Roman Catholics and Episcopalians, elect to give up a specific pleasure, such as candy or soft drinks. Some go much further and surrender meat or caffeine. Others, in the East and the West, may add modern twists. A friend of mine gave up email, one year. Some families give up television. Of course, the vast majority of churchgoers – even in the ancient churches – totally ignore Lent.

But for those who try to embrace the most traditional disciplines, this is when we venture outside of our culinary comfort zones, way out into tofu territory. Following this kind of fast isn't easy in America. This isn't Greece, where you know who offers a fast-food "McLent" menu.

Do the math. Let's say that your house contains a boy under the age of 10. If you give up all meat and dairy, this means you will not be eating cheese. This means you will not be eating macaroni and cheese. Got the picture? Of course, the church isn't asking us to sacrifice the health of our children, requiring them to stop drinking milk. Still, this is a time for radical changes.

But why place such an emphasis on food? Does anyone really think it's spiritually better to eat dark chocolate (no milk) than to eat milk chocolate? Some people forgo steaks or fried chicken, but eat their weight in forms of seafood that are allowed during the fast, such as shrimp or clams. It would not be a Lenten discipline to eat lobster every day.

A priest I know faces a unique temptation. He has a deep and abiding passion for peanut butter, a substance the Orthodox tend to see a lot of during Lent. He would happily eat peanut butter several times a day. Now, is this good or is it a temptation? Perhaps it would be a better spiritual test for him to give up peanut butter instead of real butter. Go figure.

The bottom line is that the saints and apostles agree that human appetites matter. In the early church, St. Paul preached against the sinful ways of those whose "end is destruction, their god is the belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things." But the Bible also warns believers not to turn ancient spiritual disciplines into showy gestures, planting seeds of pride and arrogance. Finding that balance can be tricky.

Still, it's good to open the refrigerator door and ask the question: Who's in charge here? This is an issue that comes up in other ancient faiths, as well.

As an Orthodox Jewish friend of mine once said: "God wants to be in my refrigerator, too. If God isn't in ... my refrigerator, then He isn't in charge of the rest of my life. If God isn't the God of my refrigerator, then He isn't the God of my check book, or my Day Timer, or my television or any of the other things that try to run my life."

Orlando's new Holy Land

ORLANDO – In his flowing Middle Eastern robes, Coptic Bishop Youssef stood out among the other tourists in the newest theme park next to the highway between Walt Disney World and Universal Studios.

Then again, he fit right in with the Holy Land Experience staffers who wear period costumes on the streets of this 15-acre model of old Jerusalem. And he felt surprisingly at home inside the Wilderness Tabernacle exhibit, a multi-media dramatization of the rites, chants, incense, vestments and holy art of Israel's ancient priesthood.

"Of course, this (ritual) is the shadow of things to come, a shadow of the worship we see in our churches in the here and now," said Youssef, who now leads the Coptic Orthodox Diocese of the Southern United States. "This is all a shadow of the glorious worship we will see in heaven for eternity."

That's lofty praise, coming from an Egyptian monk. But this also explains why controversy has swirled around this non-profit park since it opened in early February.

The Wilderness Tabernacle program opens with a tape of an Orthodox rabbi chanting Hebrew prayers from Deuteronomy. It ends with the narrator asking if the burnt offerings of the ancient Hebrews would someday lead to God offering the "perfect lamb" to die for the sins of the world – Jesus. In other words, the Jewish covenant is a prelude to the final Christian covenant.

Jewish leaders in Orlando have cried "foul," saying the Holy Land Experience twists their traditions and is a tool to proselytize Jews. Its creator, they note, is a self-proclaimed "Hebrew Christian."

Marvin Rosenthal is, in fact, the grandson of Orthodox Jews and the son of conservative Jews. So far, he said, a few Jews have visited the park – along with atheists, liberal Christians, Buddhists, Moslems and many, many busloads of Christian conservatives.

"We aren't hiding anything," said the 65-year-old Baptist minister, who converted as a teen-ager. "I don't mind people taking issue with our theology. What I mind is people who say that we don't have a right to share our beliefs or who deny that what we're saying here is what Christianity has proclaimed as the truth for 2,000 years."

Take that Hebrew chant from Deuteronomy. This is the same prayer that Jesus spoke when scribes asked him to name the greatest commandment. Jesus began by quoting: "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is One."

"Yes, this is an ancient Jewish prayer," said Rosenthal. "But this is also a prayer on the lips of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. It's our prayer, too. ... You can't understand the New Testament unless you see it in the context of Jewish believers and their faith. You have to understand the old in order to appreciate the new."

The irony is that this echoes what Israeli tour guides have said to Christians for decades, as buses roll past Jewish and Christian holy sites in Israel. But Rosenthal is not the Israeli Tourism Board. This message is much more controversial when delivered at a Christian park five miles from downtown Orlando and 7,000 miles from Jerusalem.

Rosenthal calls his creation a "living biblical museum" and it offers exhibits, pageants and pop-gospel music rather than rides and games. There is an "Oasis Palms Cafe," but no "Water Into Wine" bar. There is, alas, no reverse-bungee "Rapture Ride."

The shops in its Jerusalem Street Market sell a few crosses, but display a much wider selection of menorahs, shofars and Stars of David. The bookstore shelves include "Let My People Eat! Passover Seders Made Easy," alongside "The Sign: Christ's Coming and the End of the Age (Updated Edition)."

Terri Dyer, a Vietnamese convert from Buddhism, said this is a strikingly different set of symbols and messages than she encounters at Orlando's First Baptist Church.

"I think more people need to realize that the earliest Christians were Jews. They wouldn't have been walking around wearing crosses," she said, standing in an exhibit line with her husband and baby. "I think seeing all of this helps me identify with the early church. ... The Bible describes all kinds of things, but sometimes it's hard to picture what it would have looked like. This park helps you see things."

The Very Rev. Ted Turner speaks

Once again, the Very Rev. Ted Turner has bravely stepped forward to blaze new trails for peace, love and religious tolerance.

And all the people said: Say what?

"I was looking at this woman and I was trying to figure out what was on her forehead," said the founder of the Cable News Network, during a retirement party for anchorman Bernard Shaw. Looking around, Turner realized it was Ash Wednesday and several other Catholics were standing nearby.

"What are you, a bunch of Jesus freaks?", he asked. "You ought to be working for Fox."

There was nothing particularly shocking about the latest statement from the vice chairman of AOL Time Warner, Inc. After all, the Mouth of the South has previously said that Christianity is "for losers," pro-lifers are Bozos and the pope is a Polish idiot. Perhaps he was shocked to see signs of Lenten repentance in his newsroom and he was caught off guard.

But the key to this story came when Turner responded to the latest howls of outrage from his critics. "I apologize to all Christians for my comment about Catholics wearing ashes on their foreheads," he said. "I do not believe in any form of prejudice or discrimination, especially religious intolerance."

If his recent sermons are to be taken seriously, Turner is openly campaigning for the role of religious leader and prophet. By holding himself up as an advocate of religious tolerance, he also is implying that his enemies are the true advocates of religious intolerance.

Turner spoke at length on this topic last fall in a highly confessional address to more than 1,000 rabbis, swamis, monks, ministers and other spiritual leaders at the United Nations. Of course, the media leader did more than speak at the Millennium World Peace Summit of Religious and Spiritual Leaders – he helped create it.

As a boy, stressed Turner, he had wanted to be a Christian missionary. But now, he said, he understands that missionaries are the enemies of truth and tolerance.

"Instead of all these different gods," he said, "maybe there's one God who manifests himself and reveals himself in different ways to different people. How about that? ... Basically, the major religions which have survived today don't have blood sacrifice and they don't have hatred behind them. Those which have done the best are the ones that are built on love."

Thus, he concluded: "It's time to get rid of hatred. It's time to get rid of prejudice. It's time to have love and respect and tolerance for each other."

Turner doesn't consider himself anti-religious. He is merely opposed to religious groups that he believes are intolerant of other faith groups. Turner believes he is not anti-Christian. He is opposed to Christians who still believe that Jesus is the only path to salvation. And Turner is not anti-Catholic, per se. He financially supports Catholics who oppose their church's teachings on messy, personal subjects such as sex and salvation.

And Turner is not alone in seeing direct links between missionaries and hate groups, between evangelism and violence.

As part of a global United Religions Initiative, California Episcopal Bishop William Swing has said that in order for "religions to pursue peace among each other, there will have to be a godly cease-fire, a temporary truce where the absolute, exclusive claims of each will be honored, but an agreed-upon neutrality will be exercised in terms of proselytizing, condemning, murdering or dominating. These will not be tolerated in the United Religions zone."

Critics who think Turner and his allies are anti-religious crusaders are not seeing the big picture, said Mary Jo Anderson, a contributing editor at the Catholic journal Crisis. There's a reason Turner is so critical of religious groups that he believes are mired in the past. He is convinced that he is helping create the religion of the future.

"Ted Turner has a kind of vision," she said. "He sees a world in which everyone is free to live the way Western man lives, with three TVs, two BMWs and one child. He believes man is evolving spiritually, as well as physically. ... He is absolutely sure that he is going to be a leader in what happens next."

Lieberman takes faith-based leap

It's the question haunting the U.S. Capitol: Does changing lives have anything to do with saving souls?

If the answer is "yes," then the Beltway powers that be will have trouble sharing tax dollars with faith-based charities. Truth is, America is packed with groups that offer radically different maps describing how souls get to heaven or hell.

Many of these true believers don't like each other much and there are swarms of secularists who distrust all of them. If the U.S. government starts writing checks to the God squad – better make that the squads of the gods – then things will get real tense, real quick.

So be it, says Sen. Joe Lieberman. This tension could be good for America.

"Too often, people assume faith-based initiatives inevitably mean entanglement, establishment and ultimately theocracy," he said, in a recent Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. "That need not be the case. We are not calling for ... government endorsement of any one religion, or government favoritism for religious groups over non-religious groups." The goal, he said, is ending "favoritism of non-religious over religious groups."

But how many Americans who have yearned for a revival of faith in the public square will say "Amen!" when their tax dollars flow into the budgets of controversial religious groups? Will the religious right tolerate pluralism?

As the saying goes: Be careful what you pray for, because you may get it. Catholics will build new halfway houses, but so will Scientologists. Southern Baptists will operate counseling programs on teen sex, but so will the Unification Church. Jewish groups will open centers for the elderly, but so will the Nation of Islam.

The challenge, said Lieberman, will be to craft laws that judge faith-based programs on their deeds, not the doctrines that inspire them. It might help to assume that religious people have the same rights as non-religious people. They should be judged according to their works, not their words.

"If a non-religious group seeking federal aid meets the program criteria, produces proven results, and does not violate civil rights or other laws, it will not matter that they may have unconventional views on unrelated issues," he said. "Shouldn't the same standard apply to programs run by religious groups as well?

"In fact, it would in my view be problematic on First Amendment grounds to discriminate against faith-based groups for their particular beliefs."

It was easy to find a larger agenda in this speech, especially after Lieberman's historic role as the first Jew to receive a major-party nomination to be vice president. The Washington Post bluntly noted that this step toward supporting President Bush's faith-based initiative has placed him "in a more conservative position than many other Democrats – especially many of those considering a bid for the presidency."

Lieberman even said that evangelistic groups should even be allowed to compete for social service grants, as long as the government money is not directly used to fund campaigns to win converts.

This is where the fire will fall, if and when Lieberman and other political progressives dare to support legislation that pours government funds into aggressively faith-based programs. Combat will immediately commence between armies of lawyers, clergy and politicians focusing on the meaning of words such as "sin," "repentance" and "evangelism."

After all, some faith groups insist that all paths to God are right and anyone who says otherwise is wrong. Others want the freedom to proclaim that only their faith knows the way to heaven. These days, one man's "evangelism" is another man's "proselytizing," and one man's "proselytizing" is another's "hate crime." Will the religious left tolerate free speech?

Hopefully, said Lieberman, disagreements over religious words will not prevent new opportunities for people of faith to change more lives through their good works.

"If the proper protections are in place," he said, "and the money can't be used for proselytizing, and there are secular alternatives for beneficiaries to opt to, and no one is coerced, what in the end is the harm? Does society have more to fear from a rehabilitated drug addict who has broken his habit through a faith-based treatment than the untreated, unrehabilitated drug addict?"