Destruction of the cosmic Temple? Tish B'Av and Christians

Reading about Tisha B'Av in the Jewish calendar, I understood that it is much about the destructions (yes that's plural: one by the Babylonian empire and the next by the Roman, there has been no third temple) of the Temple in Jerusalem and also folded into those sorrowful recollections have been the calamities that have afflicted Jewish people (pogroms, expulsions, shoah, etc). The destruction of Temple in this way becomes a metaphor for other destructions -including Hiroshima. I wondered whether also taking the idea of creation -or at least the Earth as God's temple- it could be a time of lament for climate-chaos and breakdown? Perhaps a mini-liturgical season could be honoured informally?

If so, how might it look? The Tisha B'Av 'season' is three weeks and the timing is set by the Jewish lunar calendar relating to the anniversaries of the destruction of the Temple (on the ninth of the month of Av). It often takes in Hiroshima day (6 August) and that seems to be one of the things that a number of Jewish people fold into their observance of the season. So maybe the thing to do would be to take in the dropping of the nuclear bombs the 2nd being at Nagasaki on 9 August, and perhaps taking a week or two before that with, therefore, the Feast of the Transfiguration also on 6th. So end of July to start. Perhaps Mary Magdalene's feast day on 22 might be a good starting point -the story of her taking spices to anoint Jesus' body and also witnessing the resurrection are good starting points for considering 'calamitous' events? She's often associated with the woman who anointed Jesus' feet "for his burial" too ...

So I'm not proposing to change Sunday readings or anything at this point but to keep the days in between as times of reflection, prayer and repentance regarding human-made calamities affecting the cosmic Temple that is the Earth.

Praying against famine

It bears thinking about that Britain is not self-sufficient in food production and yet we don't have famine. This issue should start to figure in our heads as we deepen our praying for east Africa.Abbey Nous: East African famine: preventable and prayable: "when we pray 'give us ...' we are praying inclusively in principle: if our food can come (as it does) from the furthest parts of the world from where we live, then we cannot shrug our shoulders and say that this is nothing to do with us. If our money can call forth food and drink from Australia and New Zealand (those of us in Western Europe, that would be, Perhaps South Africa or central Asia for those in America) then we realise that we are contemplating a problem with the way that food is produced and distributed. That is a political, economic and humanitarian matter."
So we pray, but if we are serious we pray for fairer economic conditions and systems, for greater justice, for the will on the part of (we who are among) those who have the means and the clout to change systems that overwhelmingly favour them/us. God normally supplies via the systems we co-create, God calls us to co-create with God and with the poor. I tend to think that God, when we pray for help to famine-struck areas might well be saying in response something like, "Yes, but organise it better for the long term; challenge greed and injustice; remember what you can do when you put your minds to it ..."

Governance gaps and international Labour rights

Some shocking details about suppliers for some western products. Governance gaps -failed or tes, to be less euphemistic, allow slave labour to flourish. Underregulated markets do the equivalent of sending children up chimneys if we let them ...
Part of the problem is that some firms simply go round regulation by stepping into a governance gap or allowing a proxy to do so for them. We need an international response to a global set of problems -otherwise globalisation is a race to the bottom. Outsourcing has been a way for manufacturers and marketters to evade responsibilities. So contracts now increasingly embody human rights standards and these are more effective than 'police actions' by global HR agencies.
Building trust, partnership and co-operation can create the basis for a progressive 'strange new world' where TNC's actually offer the basis for human rights; listen to this mini-lecture to find out how ...
Ono of my recently-written liturgies has added agencies and corporations to praying for those who rule the world, this video gives a sense of why.
AuretvanHeerden_2010G.mp4 (video/mp4 Object)

Prayer for Global food crisis

I suggest that we make this a matter of urgency in prayer.
Global food crisis forecast as prices reach record highs | Environment | The Guardian: "Rising food prices and shortages could cause instability in many countries as the cost of staple foods and vegetables reached their highest levels in two years, with scientists predicting further widespread droughts and floods."
It's not only a matter of immediate relief of want and suffering -though that is certainly part of the picture. It is also that there political ramifications are quite frightening: remember that historically hunger has driven the instability and even collapse of societies. It is also that we need, as an international community and global citizens to be addressing the means to deal with this as a long term strategy: this is the harbinger of the structural-political-economic problems that climate change brings. We are praying for the very survival of civilisation (and against the collapse of order, law, stability etc and for the saving of human welfare for billions) it's that important. Really. 'Global resiliance' is the shorthand way to sum up this prayer, I think.

Oh, and of course, the second thing is the question we should ask ourselves, what do I /we do to better co-operate with the answering of our prayers?

Brazil's huge new port highlights China's drive into South America

Not this about the way that China is pressing an agenda to fashion a multi-polar geopolitics (read: counterweighting the USA).

They seek to fashion a multipolar world in which no single power – read the United States – plays an overwhelmingly dominant role. To this end, they seek to bolster ties with rising regional powers like Brazil and South Africa.

Of course, the USA signs up in theory to human rights (and appears to be selective in applying or promoting them). China, on the other hand, doesn't really sign up to them ...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/15/brazil-port-china-drive

'Cannibal cafe' in Berlin = a vegetarian campaign

You may have heard of this and though various things. It would certainly make for an interesting ethical discussion. It now turns out it was a ploy by a German vegetarian group (Vebu):

"Vebu wants to draw attention to all of us who are affected by the worldwide consumption of meat,'

And the reason for doing this is something that we should all, indeed, consider:

It pointed out that every 3.6 seconds somebody dies in the world due to undernourishment, while the majority of grain production is used for the feeding of farm animals."

As I keep saying: the world can't sustain our western meat addiction. Reduce or remove meat from your diet!
'Cannibal cafe' in Berlin a vegetarian campaign hoax | World news | The Guardian

The Future of Faith

Harvey Cox who is a well-known theologian speaking about how he sees the future of faith. You'll need just over 50 minutes to hear all of the video including about 25-30 minutes for the questions and answers which are worth hearing. However, if you want to get a sense of what is covered, here are my notes.

There are 3 Main points (related to Cox's book The Future of Faith)
1. predictions of demise of religion were premature and we can expect religion to be around for a good while yet.

2. We are witnessing a fundamental change in what religiousness means. (In past overestimated the benefits of modernity (Progress?); 20th century disproved the optimistic modernisation thesis. Also underestimated the ability of religions to adapt to changing times). Particularly
(a) the 'experiential turn' (foregrounding encounter rather than teaching) which is affecting all religions globally. Eg Pentecostal and Charismatic Christianity.
(b) change to a more porous/open relationship between religions: Eg RC woman who goes to mass, a Pentecostal choir, yoga and has books by the Dalai Lama. Borrowing.
(c) focus: away from next-life to this-life

3. Fundamentalism is declining and will continue to do so. Term reapplied from Christianity to other religious movements in Judaism, Islam etc. It has hard time coping with the general pluralism in societies globally.

Christianity is entering the most exciting phase in its history. It is now beginning to have a majority of non-western followers for whom (an experience of) Jesus rather than doctrine is most central. Also, discoveries at eg Nag Hammadi, which have emphasised the variety and plurality of early Christianity before imperial centralisation, is beginning to affect and reinforce the experiential turn.

Questions and disputations
Belief ctr faith: Belief is about assent; faith about loyalty (etymologically). Belief often implies lack of surety while faith indicates a direction of life.
Three ages:
1. Pre-Constantinian ('Age of Faith' -?)
2. Age of Belief (post-Constantinian) where Christianity meant asssenting to a creed or creeds.
3. Age of the Spirit (now-ish) reconciliation, unity and wholistic perspectives come to the fore. Analogies in Judaism, Islam, Buddhism.
The issue is how to be in touch with the sacred without the packaging: an awareness of how our symbols and talking are imperfect and provisional.

Re RCC, Pope etc
RCC is showing up a dramatic out-playing of the changes being discussed above. Important figures from 20C RCC: John XXIII and aggiornamento -Vatican II. Thomas Merton who died in a Buddhist monastery. Dorothy Day: Catholic Workers' Movement and serving the poor etc. Oscar Romero drew attention to preferential option for the poor. Benedict seems to have the idea that he needs to 'circle the wagons': defendable and clear articulation of RC faith. He sees secularising Europe, Latin American RCC haemorraging to pentecostalism and Liberation theology and in N.Am lay people asking for a say in church governance. His response seems to be defensive and rallying non-RCs who empathise with 'circling the wagons' hence invitation to Anglicans.
Cox thinks this approach will be self-defeating:. note. for example, married priests coming in from Anglican dissent .... !!!

Family resemblances of fundamentalisms
reaching back, retrieving and redeploying some element of tradition into present day. Changelessness is sought.
All fight a war on two fronts: one is against a secular world, the other is against 'accommodationist' or dissenting co-religionists.
Also share a suspicion in positions of leadership.

Evidence for declining fundamentalism?
Taliban in Afghanistan are increasingly distrusted where they are mainly about violence because they seem unable to build social and economic life in communities. In Iran, the violent response to demands for greater say in governance indicates insecurity.

Human Interest - The Future of Faith - Book TV

Now I'm not as sure as he is about declining fundamentalism, though I do think that he is right to point to the way that the need for positive and constructive engagement with real people, community-building and global citizenship tends to mollify and chasten hardline ideologues -even when the ideology is religious.

I think I would add into the mix concerning 'fundamentalisms' that many of them gain their energy from people who seem to be looking for fights; looking for ways to feel better about themselves by metaphorically spitting on other people. There are some interesting mental gymnastics that have to be done to hold that impetus sealed from the core of most religious traditions which really do lie with respect, love, compassion etc.

I have various ideas about how we should respond to the challenges ahead. I broadly agree that the wholistic impetus is part of a global culture thing that we need to take note of and think how to articulate Christian faith in relation to. The first bite at that gave us a lot of 'New Age' stuff, but that fails to hold onto the distinctive things that characterise Christian faith (and often other faiths too, save, perhaps, some Hindu traditions) and produce a variety of religious expressions that are, in effect, something new and not recognised or 'owned' by any religious traditions thus failing in their unitive or reconciliatory aims.

I have various thoughts about this, but not time to develop them here. Hopefully I'll get to write more in due course about re-playing Christian faith in the key of wholism.

Feast of Fools: Theological Essay on Festivity and Fantasy

Ulterior motives?

"To approach the dialogue process without this awareness, as some evangelicals seem to have done, is to run the risk of manipulation by international Islamic interests. We are concerned that some of the Muslim leaders involved in the Common Word project may be manipulating Christian naïveté and feelings of guilt to further the cause of Islamic da‘wa"
- Barnabas Fund - hope and aid for the Persecuted Church | Persecuted Christians : Recent Changes in Christian Approaches to Islam (view on Google Sidewiki)

Given that many Muslims think that this is what western Christians are up to, this smacks of pot calling kettle black. Especially as in some cases it is actually true of some westerners, Evangelicals in particular. It is hard, therefore to be entirely sympathetic with the statement that follows: "To approach the dialogue process... as some evangelicals seem to have done, is to run the risk of manipulation by international Islamic interests. We are concerned that some of the Muslim leaders involved in the Common Word project may be manipulating Christian naïveté and feelings of guilt to further the cause of Islamic da‘wa "

We should recall that part of the mission of Christians is dialogue: it is directly implied by neighbour love, incarnation and the blessing of peacemakers. By all means do it as 'cunning as serpents and innocent as doves', though.

in reference to:

Yes, but that misses the point

I also agree that, of necessity, certain Christian doctrines are likely to offend Muslim sensibilities (and this has always been the case in mission: some gospel stuff cuts across accepted mores or 'politeness' fields). However, that is not the issue named earlier in the paragraph. The statement allegedly being taken issue with says: "Da‘wa and evangelism should focus primarily on a positive presentation of what one believes, not on negative attacks on the other's faith". This is not about the inherent incompatibilities of different world views and the potential thereby for degrees of offence, rather it is saying, in effect "no negative campaigning', don't set out to offend, don't build your communication around denigration; build it round a positive presentation of what you value and believe rather than what you don't believe. Don't be abusive or argumentative ....

in reference to: Barnabas Fund - hope and aid for the Persecuted Church | Persecuted Christians : Recent Changes in Christian Approaches to Islam (view on Google Sidewiki)

Lest you think that I think it's a bad article:

I agree with the writer here:

"While in certain contexts it might be wise to perform a secret baptism so as to protect the convert, Love seems to go beyond that precautionary attitude and to be willing to subordinate a basic Christian rite and doctrine to Muslim perceptions. He also ignores the context of this special baptism, in which the Pope was responding to complaints by converts from Islam in the West that the Church was ignoring them and their plight and was not willing to offer them protection and refuge."

A robust dialogue with Muslims means that Muslims have to deal with the fact of Muslim-backgrounded people turning to Christ (just as we have to deal with the reverse situation). I don't expect Muslims to change their practices for reception into Islam and I don't expect that they should assume we would change ours. This is part of the point of the statement engineered by Philip Lewis referred to previously, incidently.

in reference to:

- Barnabas Fund - hope and aid for the Persecuted Church | Persecuted Christians : Recent Changes in Christian Approaches to Islam (view on Google Sidewiki)

There's so much wrong with this I hardly know where to begin ...

"it is only through the unique Messiah Jesus that salvation is offered and only in the Church He founded as His body that fellowship is to be practised. The Insider Movement encourages Muslim background believers to distance themselves from traditional Christian forms, but rather than returning to the New Testament paradigm, it at least implicitly endorses Muslim doctrines, rites and traditions, many of which were developed in conscious opposition to Christianity and the Bible"

First: the appeal to the Samaritan woman does not refute the Insider position: if anything it may support it: if salvation is really in the Messiah and worship de-localised, then that is no problem to the C5 Insider; rather the reverse: it is the fetishising of 'Christian' culture, buildings and religiosity that is the problem in a similar way to the fetishising of Temple and Kashrut.

The other major thing is the blind spot this exhibits to the 'compromises' made with culture and religion in the course of western cultural and mission history; it smacks of pulling up the ladder after we've climbed up. Every problematisation of C5 stuff in this paragraph can be paralleled with 'acceptable' things in western Christianity.

This is not to say that there aren't problems with the C5 Insider position, but they aren't quite those presented here. Furthermore, the presentation here is unfair on the actual issues 'in the field' and the ways that those involved wrestle with them.

I still think that there is serious merit in the thought that 'if it doesn't risk syncretism, it isn't mission'.

in reference to:

- Barnabas Fund - hope and aid for the Persecuted Church | Persecuted Christians : Recent Changes in Christian Approaches to Islam (view on Google Sidewiki)

Inconsistent scaremongering?

in reference to:

"These notes use the Qur'an to help shed light on the Biblical narrative. The notes suggest (albeit only by implication) that the Qur'an is somehow, and to some extent, authoritative and useful in Bible study, as it sheds new light on God's Word. The Bible is not to be understood only in its own terms, but also in light of the Qur'an."

I'm finding myself increasing irritated by the slurring involved in this kind of argument. In principle, the notes referred to are probably not doing anything different from using, say, the poetry of Tennyson (or Paul's use of Greek poetry or John's use of stoic ideas) as dialogue partners for considering our own scriptures. In fact we all do this all the time: we interpret the scripture through the lens of our own experience, concerns and pre-understandings. This doesn't mean we are elevating such things to the same status as the Word of God; merely that we are seeking to integrate the Word into our thought patterns more thoroughly and to give the space for scripture to help us to view the world around us more insightfully and wisely. In principle this is what we should be doing, cannot avoid doing, in fact.

I therefore take issue with the sly implication that to do this is to subordinate scripture to something else. The implication of this passage is that the Bible should be hermetically sealed off from other areas of experience, thought or nurturance. To take someone else's designation of something as a source of reflection or authority seriously is not necessarily to agree with them. It merely means recognising that it is so for them. Unless we do that, we cannot do the work of trying to make connections between what we believe to be important and what 'they' believe to be important.

- Barnabas Fund - hope and aid for the Persecuted Church | Persecuted Christians : Recent Changes in Christian Approaches to Islam (view on Google Sidewiki)

This is not what the text says

in reference to:

"the document encourages Christian and Muslim preachers to say only things about the other religion that are well received by their neighbours and colleagues from it. This principle appears to suggest that no Christian critique of Islam can ever be legitimate, and might even be seen by some as an implicit acceptance of dhimmi status, which forbids non-Muslims to do anything objectionable to Muslims."

The text referred to actually talks about not saying things that the other would not recognise. It is phrased in such a way as to allow critical comment but to disallow or discourage unfair criticism. So it would allow Muslims to say that Christian religion has been used to justify morally repugnant acts in the Crusades, however, it should discourage them from making the accusation that the doctrine of the Trinity is polytheism. Far from a reproduction of the conditions for a cowed dhimmitude it is actually a call to truth-telling and the discipline of neighbour love: to do to the other what we would have them do to us; in this case to speak fairly and charitably. I fear that this bit of the statement is in danger of failing that test.

- Barnabas Fund - hope and aid for the Persecuted Church | Persecuted Christians : Recent Changes in Christian Approaches to Islam (view on Google Sidewiki)

How many infinite transcendent-yet-immanent Creators of the cosmos can there be?

The article near the beginning says:

""believers in the One God", a phrase that assumes the word "God" to have the same referent in Islam and in Christianity."

This is ridiculous and really ought to be lost from Evangelical discourse. How can the referent be any other than the same? It may be that our understandings of some aspects of 'God' are different but that would be on a par with a dispute about whether one of my friends was, say, opinionated: no one seriously doubts the person in question is my friend; it is the way they act in some situations and how that is to be interpreted that is at issue.in reference to:

- Barnabas Fund - hope and aid for the Persecuted Church | Persecuted Christians : Recent Changes in Christian Approaches to Islam (view on Google Sidewiki)

Inclusivism or pluralism?

I'm concerned here that the word 'inclusivism' is used when I think that something else is meant:

 "The liberal tradition of Christianity, which dominates the Christian presence at the interfaith table, has long espoused a theology of ecumenical inclusivism"

What appears to be meant, using the following sentences as a guide, is 'pluralism'. Inclusivism is a position which is not pluralist and is also not exclusivist. I'm concerned that by lumping the label inclusivism with liberal 'pluralism' a theological straw man is being moved into position to only allow exclusivism as the legitimate 'Evangelical' position. Even if I'm being too sensitive at this point, the misuse of the term still needs to be flagged up so as not to mislead readers in other discussions where the terms are used in the more generally accepted ways.
in reference to:

- Barnabas Fund - hope and aid for the Persecuted Church | Persecuted Christians : Recent Changes in Christian Approaches to Islam (view on Google Sidewiki)

Dates before Twin Towers fall

So far this article is an interesting account of interfaith and dialogue initiatives between Muslims and Christians. The article started by framing this as an after the Twin Towers thing. These following dates, however, are before that incident. That's not to invalidate what's being written here, but it is important to note that the issues predate the 'crisis'.
in reference to:

"in 1997. He helped set up a joint Christian-Muslim Planning Group in 2000 and a larger Reference Group of Christian and Muslim leaders in 2001"
- Barnabas Fund - hope and aid for the Persecuted Church | Persecuted Christians : Recent Changes in Christian Approaches to Islam (view on Google Sidewiki)

Global deep freeze threatens 2010 food supply

It's time to start thinking about simplifying our diets. Recall that a Christian response is called for ...Global deep freeze threatens 2010 food supply: "The global deep freeze now striking North America, Europe, China and other regions may lead to severe food shortages and price hikes throughout 2010. Right now, rare freezing temperatures are destroying root crops in their ground, wiping out citrus orchards and devastating food producers around the world. The upshot of it all? Expect food shortages and rising food prices throughout 2010."

Cut the Cow, pass on the pork, leave the lamb ...

Christmas, as you might imagine, can be a testing time for vegetarians. All that ostentatious consumption of meat along with the mental picture it conjures up of mass-slaughter and factory-farm conditions for the vast majority of hapless victims. It is more particularly testing for those of us who are vegetarian for reasons of environmental impact and planetary justice. We don't have the fairly absolute inner prohibitions in place that our animal-welfare sibling-vegetarians and vegans have. We are merely 'tactically' vegetarian; that is we are not refraining from meat because we think that eating flesh is simply wrong. On the contrary we think that there may be a time for some meat-eating if the world were not so screwed up. So our difficulty is the treacherous sense that we could eat some meat, it's a special occasion, and it does look so nice, and everyone is enjoying it so, and just one little bit wouldn't hurt...

But of course, that would be the slippery slope to rejoining the overconsumption that is now normal in the global-North /West. I've been there and got the t-shirt. You see, I became vegetarian when I was about 22, mostly because I was convinced by Ron Sider's position in Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger. Basically Sider pointed out that in a world where many died of hunger and malnutrition, it was scandalous that we made meat a regular part of our diet given that it was so expensive, in resource terms to produce. His figures were (if memory serves me aright) that it took roughly 8 units of vegetable protein to produce one unit of beef, 6 for lamb or mutton and 4 for poultry. Our mouthfuls of meat were taking the bread from the mouths of the global poor, as we could outbid them to feed our livestock..

Later on, I got fed up of the way that my diet seemed to inconvenience people in my parish; so I decided I'd eat meat from time to time mainly to not put others out. (It takes a re-vamping of the culinary imagination to be able to menu in vegetarian and a lot of people were clearly flummoxed when their invitation to a meal became a bit more of a drama than they had anticipated). The problem was 'occasionally' slipped into 'regularly' and before long the idea of being a lower meat-consumption body was away with the fairies. So a few years later, I realised what had happened, prompted partly by the keeping company with vegans and vegetarians and partly by my daughter's dislike of most meat, and I re-became vegetarian. It was good, also, to return to the major reason and renounce meat for the ecological footprint reasons.

These reasons are well-stated by Philip Sampson in a recently-published article in Third Way (December 2009, in fact). Let me quote some of his pithy summaries of the argument.

Industrial meat production is a profligate consumer of grain and water. One kilogram of beef requires 16 kilograms of feed and the same volume of water as 200 kilograms of potatoes. Worse, more than one third of the world's grain harvest is fed to livestock, and two thirds of cattle food in the industrial world is imported from countries where there is a shortage of grain. ...

Current meat consumption in the UK requires six times more land than we have available. We therefore import feed, and fatten animals on other people's land. Cattle grazing and animal feed are the main drivers of deforestation worldwide. ...

The livestock industry generates some 18 per cent of anthropogenic greenhouse gases. Reducing meat consumption is the most effective single thing a family can do to combat global warming. ...
Our abuse of animals is certainly unsustainable, and it would be foolish to continue a pattern of consumption that robs our children.

There you have it: these seem to me to be huge reasons to reduce, if not eliminate, meat from our diets. You may as well start and get in practice now because when peak oil hits and carbon trading effects kick in, we're going to notice quite big hikes in price of meat and of products which hiddenly rely on meat production. It is a matter of justice for the globally-marginal and precarious. It is a matter of creation care for the beleaguered ecosystem that God has let us have in trust for future generations and the dignity and beauty of what it has become.

Lord when did we see you hungry and fed you? ... When you forewent meat and helped to feed the hungry, you did it to me.

Lord, when did we see you naked and clothed you? ... When you ate only vegetables, you saved forest from the plough; then you clothed me in the verdancy of the planet.

In as far as you did this for one of these little ones and for my creation, you did it to me.

Health Care International

If a picture is worth a thousand words ....

Health Care Status.gif (image)

Set before us: life or death

Echoing things I've been thinking for a few years, I've discovered someone who has written about it but somehow I've missed. Here's the nub:

“We are at a point in time in the human experience where we will soon be facing very deep and very rapid changes,” Korten intones. “It is time to begin making some very deep choices both individually and collectively.” Out of this pivotal moment will emerge one of two eventualities: The Great Turning or the Great Unraveling.
In the Great Turning, Korten explains, humanity recognizes its overshoot and begins to turn back from the 5,000-year-old values of “Empire”—exploitation, subjugation and deprivation, to those of “Earth Community”—a life-centered, egalitarian, sustainable way of ordering society based on democratic principles of partnership. In the Great Unraveling, society rapidly disintegrates into a fight to the death for rapidly dwindling resources.

And I think that we should hear this too:

“Empire is not inevitable, not the natural order of things. But in our time, Empire has reached the limits of exploitation that the people and the planet will tolerate. And all the evidence of [our current] environmental and social breakdown all trace back to this unifying reality,” says Korten.
But, he maintains, we can turn away from it. “On a finite planet, sustainability and equity are inseparably linked.”
Korten divides humanity into five essential states of consciousness: magical, imperial, social, cultural and spiritual. The culture of Empire is driven by the first two, the culture of Earth Community is driven by the last two, and those of the Socialized Consciousness—good people who, although taking their cues and values from the dominant culture, play by the rules, expect a fair reward and don’t intend any harm—occupy a vast middle and comprise the literal and metaphysical swing voters with the power to shift us towards the Great Turning

Healthy Living With a Twist - LIME