There is a tradition that Lent is a time when we give something up. This giving something up has many implications, one of which is in giving something up we realize our dependence on others or God. For instance if you fast from food you become tired and must rely on the energy of God and others to get you through the day(s). In giving up food we become dependant on others and God.

Many of my friends do not like to talk about giving something up for Lent. Rather they talk in terms of taking something on. So, instead of "giving up time" to read the Bible everyday, they would "take on" reading the Bible daily.

I know i may be arguing semantics, but I wonder if this reversal of "taking on" verses "giving up" is hijacking Lent?

In "giving something up", we in some ways are admitting our own limitations. But taking something on feels like I can do "more".

And when I think about it, "more" is really the American mantra.

We have more of everything than everyone. Have you ever thought about how much we love to see the word "More" as though more is intrinsically better than "less"?

30% more deodorant. All you can eat buffets. Buy one get one free.

I do not know if taking on "more" for lent is a morph or a hijacking of the tradition.

I am beginning to think that re-framing the issue so that we do not "give up" but "take more" in Lent is a way of contorting lent to our desires and wishes. Giving up usually addresses our weaknesses, while taking more addresses our over abundance.

I don't know, perhaps I am just a traditionalist in this regard?