So for Lent I gave up three things: graham crackers, coffee, and facebook. I have already failed once (though... only once).
I gave up graham crackers because I eat way too many of them at work. Though I have recently gained a few pounds, I think that is more hormonal than because of the grahams. Eating so many individually wrapped packages of graham crackers goes against my religion. Wait no, it actually goes against my attempt to lessen my impact on the landfills. Too must plastic! I have not eaten a graham cracker since Shrove Tuesday.
Coffee. Since reading about coffee and chocolate, I decided to only drink/eat fair trade coffee/chocolate. I gave up coffee completely for Lent because it contributes to inflammation. I've been having a lot of flare-ups with my joints again recently so this choice might be a forever choice... not just forty days. I have been successful and not had a single cup since Shrove Tuesday.
Ok... here's where the devil tempted me. Facebook. I checked my facebook news the day of the tsunami because my cousin moved to Hawaii less than two weeks ago. I only checked it once, didn't find an update, so I texted her. I haven't checked it since.
What I've found is that after a few days, the temptation of partaking in my fasted items has lessened. The temptation only lasts for a couple minutes for a cup of coffee. Once I say "no" in my head, I'm good to go. It's an issue of mind over matter I guess.
There are some people who believe in "speaking things into existence." Conversely, some may believe in NOT saying things, to ensure that they don't come true. A friend quickly brought up the example of not saying "Voldemort" in the Harry Potter series, because the more you say his name, the more power he gains. This is actually a real psychological tactic I've used, and I imagine others use as well.
I think this is rooted in James 3:1-12. I asked a co-worker/friend how she stays calm in such an anxiety ridden place as the one in which we work (a hospital). She pointed me to a passage in John which talked about not allowing our hearts to be anxious and troubled. The James passage says the tongue (our speech) is like a ship's rudder that directs the course of something larger than us. This SEEMS true, and according to Chomsky's "A Review of B.F. Skinner's Verbal Behavior", verbal behavior is "[a] remarkably complex phenomenon," (Chomsky 1959). This paper criticizes Skinner's verbal behavior theory or loosely put- the influence of our words. Both scholars acknowledge the movement of influence of language on others.
Have you been searching for the bar joke concerning God, the Devil, Jesus, James, John and Noam Chomsky? I haven't made it up yet. I just thought it was an interesting title that would get people to read my blog. See how the manipulation or "traps" work? Was it a trap, or was it using my words to direct a path? "Manipulation" seems evil. To "direct" seems less evil. "Guide" seems well-intended. There's a point here: obviously, some perspective is involved. Also though, is there is passage of time and events that is involved. When discussing whether is something is "good" or "evil" it often depends on the end result.
When things go well in our lives, like "successfully" fasting on graham crackers and coffee, we attribute these things with thanks to God... as blessings. When things happen that are bad or evil, often we blame the devil. However, I think what James points out, is that we take an ACTIVE part... we are the means, by which either the God or Devil... good things or bad things... take place in the world. This is why being responsible and making sound decisions (like, not hurting others) is important. Our influence in the world may be infinite, and we have the choice (free will) to allow God to be apart of it- to be a vessel of blessings- or to let the devil take over -to be a vessel of hate.
Here's another thing. Though it has been relatively easy to "say no" to the temptations calling me to drink coffee (which may actually be physiological since it was a bit of a habit) or eat graham's and facebook, it has opened my eyes to the other "temptations" or opportunities for me to steer my rudder-speech into ghastly stormy waters. This week my boss made me cry, because she said I was being disrespectful to her. I probably was a little disrespectful, though not rude, because I thought she made a bad call which could result in a patient choking on a food he wasn't supposed to eat. He ended up not choking, even though she gave him the wrong food (against doctor's orders). Here, the end result was fine, though partially by chance. It is still likely that this person could choke on this particular food if he eats it again.
How could I have been a better vessel? I tried to be a deliverer of care (good) but ended up also being a vessel of distress to my boss via disrespect (bad).
In addition, when I expressed to a male co-worker my interest in the ministry, he contributed that he did not believe that women should hold positions in the church. He gave some half-way legit reasoning (at least he had a reason!), though I still disagree. In return I gave him some half-way legit appeal. The conversation was short and civil.
Later, yet another co-worker (who had overheard both conversations) came over to an exhausted me, gave me a hug, and reminded me that the devil tempted Jesus while he fasted in the desert for forty days. I think this is a wonderful metaphor for our lives. While we walk into the unknown future labyrinth of life, we will leave marks. We will be tempted to leave bad marks. But if we attempt to be mindful and observe the consequences of our tongues (and actions) we may leave a good mark, a good energy, a good influence on our neighbors. To me, this is God's commandment, as expressed in "Love one another" (1 John 4:7).
http://cogprints.org/1148/1/chomsky.htm. A Review of B. F. Skinner's Verbal Behavior" in Language, 35, No. 1 (1959), 26-58.
4 comments:
I'm sorry about your male co-worker being unsupportive like that. You can't really blame him, though (1 Corinthians 14:34-36 and 1 Timothy 2:11-15), and then there are Acts 18:26, Romans 16:1 and 16:7 which give brief mention of women leaders/teachers in the church, but they are brief - so I can see how the contradiction and brevity could maybe confuse him and why his reasoning is half-way legit.
I, for one, think you can do whatever your heart desires. For as long as I've known you, you are always strong, disciplined and thoughtful in most matters - great qualities of a leader!
Ugh, bad grammar and punctuation all over the place in that comment! Sorry.
Haha no worries about grammar/punctuation- i cant edit anything until the day after i write it. so i'm full of it!
That is exactly the verse in corinthians i think he was referring to. Another coworker said her pastor had proposed that what was actually happening was that the women were gossiping up in the balcony because they were not allowed to participate in the service, which is why they were told to shut up. Also, this is the great thing about 2011 in the United States where we actually have rights now! If they wanted to play by their rules of the day where they oppressed women, fine, but we shall play by our rules of the day as well :)
His reasoning is "biblically based". This is one of the biggest problems I have with Christianity. Not everything biblically based is legit. We don't stone people anymore. And though God is said to have a wrath, that doesn't make it right for us to wage wars 'in his name'. Christians are supposed to go by Jesus's law, which commands us to love our neighbor as we love ourselves. Not oppress and kill in the name of God.
ps... i try to be thoughtful in all ways, but i know i fail. and i am truly sorry :/
Post a Comment