Whose Image?

“Then the Pharisees met together to plot how to trap Jesus into saying something for which he could be arrested. They sent some of their disciples, along with the supporters of Herod, to meet with him. “Teacher,” they said, “we know how honest you are. You teach the way of God truthfully. You are impartial and don’t play favourites. Now tell us what you think about this: Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?”

But Jesus knew their evil motives. “You hypocrites!” he said. “Why are you trying to trap me? Here, show me the coin used for the tax.”

When they handed him a Roman coin, he asked, “Whose picture and title are stamped on it?”

“Caesar’s,” they replied.

“Well, then,” he said, “give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and give to God what belongs to God.”
His reply amazed them, and they went away.”

I don't know about other countries, but here in the UK all our money - coin and paper - has the queen's head on it; how little has changed in two millennia. But it makes the first of Jesus' points clearer: pay your taxes, don't cheat the government. The government prints the money and, these days, it gives it its value, so give to the government what is theirs. No tax evasion, no tax avoidance: the mean-spiritedness which pays accountants and advisors in order to avoid paying the government just shrivels the soul.

But that part of Jesus' reply is not what amazed his questioners and sent them away silenced.

"Give to God what is God's" - if money bears the Caesar's image, what bears the image of God? Or, more precisely, who? Way back in the very first chapter of the Bible, we are told "God created mankind in his own image. In the image of God he created them; male and female he created them". You and I bear God's picture, his image ... maybe somewhat messed up, but there nevertheless.

"Give to God what is God's" - that would be myself, and my neighbours. Jesus said elsewhere that we cannot serve both God and Mammon - money, wealth, possessions. Money is useful to live, and has its own rules, including payment of taxes due. But God takes priority over money.

Part of the background to the question was that people were struggling to pay both the Roman taxes and the taxes and tithes demanded by the religious authorities. Part of Jesus' answer is that these religious authorities - and the questioners - were wrong to be focussing on money as they did. Their focus should have been righteousness and justice - which would have messed up their cosy relationship with the Roman occupiers, of course.

The standard Anglican communion service has a quite remarkable line toward the end:

Through him [Jesus] we offer you our souls and bodies to be a living sacrifice.

Which is an amazing sentence, when you think about it, but it does take Jesus' 'Give to God' point very seriously.

Money is useful for living, but God must come first: his justice and his mercy. And how we spend our money (after taxes) reflects our priorities. Whether that is in spending a few extra pence on 'fairly traded' food (or not), or buying more expensive (in the short term) low-power light bulbs (or not), or reducing our use of our car - if we have one - in favour of walking, cycling or public transport (or not).

We are made in God's image; so are African farmers struggling against unfair global terms of trade; and so are Bangladeshi's at risk of being flooded out as sea levels rise due to global warming.

Giving to God what is God's means being careful of God's image, wherever it occurs, and acting in ways which benefit that image throughout the world.

"Do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with your God."

Losing Weight

I've been skinny and I've been plump; in my experience plump is warmer! But you can have too much of a good thing.

In quick succession back in January: I was told by my dentist that I was probably snoring more because my collar size had reached 16; I started getting a red and itchy line around my middle where my undies had become too tight; and I got a letter from my doctor's surgery suggesting I go for a late-middle-age checkup (not quite how they put it, of course), complete with questionnaire to fill in. The odd thing was that, although I had eaten a lot over the Christmas period without much exercise, my weight hadn't actually changed. Nevertheless, I did feel more tired; worst of all, after I measured my neck following the chat with my dentist I checked my waist as well: 39" ... I thought I was only just creeping above 36!

The trouble is that it is widely recognised these days that dieting makes you fat. So losing weight is a little more involved than the simplistic health messages would have you believe. There is a complicated mix of thermodynamics - energy in and energy out - along with appetite, digestive absorption and metabolic rate. If you just eat less it can, if you are not careful, simply make you hungrier and more efficient in the way your body processes food: lose/lose.

Luckily, I was starting 'clean' - no previous diets to mess my hormones about, and from a stable (if high-ish) weight. So I did a bit of research, applied a bit of common sense (ie no fads and don't believe a word that tabloids say), and started. It seemed to me that the easiest approach was to start with the energy balance - eat less and exercise more - but to try to make sure the side effects didn't undermine me. So I set myself a long-term target of losing half a pound a week, on average, over six months, taking me from 13 stone 2 (184lbs = 83.5kg) to around 12 stone (168lbs = 76kg) by August. As I write, I notice that my arithmetic was out: 16 pounds at half a pound a week will take seven months: so, to the end of August then (or aim for just over the weekly half pound - I'll see how that goes).

That needed me to eliminate around 250 'calories' (kcal, really) per day - basically cut down on between-meal snacks and reduce my portion sizes a little - and add a couple of brisk walks or cycle rides (of around a mile) each week. I found help in setting the target from a fascinating 'Body Weight Simulator' from NIH, which illustrates what changes are needed for a given long term target (NB it emphasises it is "for general research use only and is not intended to provide personal medical advice or substitute for the advice of a physician"). I also liked a simple webpage I found listing 50 Ways To Cut 250 Calories.

Not that it's quite that simple, of course. After a fortnight I had lost four pounds, without really trying hard; I wasn't naive enough to think it was all going to be that easy, but it seemed like a really good start. Two weeks later three of the pounds were back on. Two weeks later they were back off again. Three weeks after that I had reached the half-way weight mark, eight pounds down, at well short of half the time. Now, at around twelve weeks, I'm back up again to just five pounds down - but that is still close to my half a pound a week.

The biggest help I have found along the way is a good breakfast - there has long been research showing that skipping breakfast leads to weight gain, and my experience backs that up. I find a big bowl of luxury muesli (the sort with dried fruit and nuts) and milk fills me up, and keeps me full all morning. The biggest hindrance for me has been take-aways and eating out. Not only do I end up eating more, but I also find myself feeling hungrier over the next couple of days.

Is there a wider spiritual aspect to all this? Weight and body image have become so tied in these days with issues of self-respect and self-worth that I think there is. We need to feel good about who we are, whatever our body shape, and to be motivated by a desire to look after ourselves and look after our bodies. It shouldn't be that we feel bad about ourselves now, yet hope to suddenly feel good if only we can achieve some magic lower weight, but that we feel good and want to treat ourselves properly.

It's all part of a bigger picture that we need to love and respect ourselves as well as we can, whilst loving and respecting those we meet just as much.