A Thanksgiving message

I recently read something about a person's first Thanksgiving with white people. At first, it just seems like the speaker is just talking about his whims about food. Then he moves past that and discusses diversity beyond food in every aspect of life.

He viewed the white people's food as unacceptable because she wasn't used to it. He was unaccustomed to things like potato salad. It just seemed weird to her at first. But he was eventually able to overlook the difference and taste it. And he eventually found out that it wasn't that bad. He even liked it.

He then moves on to discuss her cultural adaption in which she realized that people are people regardless of whether they're from her culture. He discovered that black people aren't the only ones who cook soul food.

The big thing he learned is this: diversity in culture is not to be shunned; it is to be celebrated. Instead of looking at differences as a means dividing, we should look at them as something that can unite us. Where is the spice of life without the diversity of cultures?

The big thing the speaker in this essay learned was to be open-minded. As he realized that foods he had never tasted could taste good, he realized that many other aspects of foreign cultures are desirable and interesting. So, be thankful for diversity.

Spanking

I can't hear the word "spank" without it leaving a sense of dread - albeit somewhat dimmed - in the pit of my stomach. You see, my parents used the Pearl's book, To Train Up A Child, as a basic guide in punishing my siblings and I. I won't even pretend that they were anywhere near as extreme as some parents when it comes to punishing, but I remember really hating the rod all the same. With good reason did I hate it. Spanking, especially with the instrument my parents used, is painful. And not only is it painful, but it can also be counterproductive and emotionally damaging.

 The premise of spanking for most Christian, home school parents is that it drives evil from the child, or something like that. They think that not spanking is equivalent to spoiling. If that were true, then they would be right in their punishment. But it's not true and they're often wrong in the way they punish.

 The whole point of spanking is to make sure the child won't sin next time, or transgress against what the parent has decided is wrong. Spanking is emotional conditioning that trains children to do what their parents  wish. But what happened when I was spanked was this: I developed a fear and hatred of the rod and to some degree a fear and hatred of my parents. So strong was this emotion that I was willing to lie and hide and fight back when they attempted to spank me. At one point, I think I tried to destroy the rod, which at the time was an evil instrument given to mom as a present from a fellow homeschooling mother.

I can't speak for everyone, but my experience tells me that being spanked as often as I got spanked doesn't really work. Often, the things I was being punished for paled in comparison to what  I did to escape punishment. And I was also living in constant fear that I might be punished.

After being going through all that, I had decided that I wanted to raise my children the same way. It was so ingrained in my head that I had to parent the same way or I would be doing it wrong. After one session of punishment, my mom threw me in a room and made me listen to a story about Michael Pearl and his experience spanking children. I was under ten, so I naturally believed everything that he said. Between being punished by my parents and being inundated with the Pearl's child training material, I was thoroughly convinced that this was right. I even thought it was supported with scripture because they quoted the Bible so often. Verses that say things like "foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him" and then another that says something to the effect that it's better to bruise a child than let him grow up to be spoiled and go to hell were used for support.

But now I think those verses and verses like them are misinterpreted. The rod of correction can easily be looked at as a metaphor for measures taken to correct a child. It may assume the form of spanking at times, but I think it generally refers the methods parents use to correct a child. Under girding this verse, the commandment to love one another as Christ has loved us must be looked at instead of  simply focusing on a verse here and there that indicates parents need to spank their children. The whole point of spanking children is to do it out of love. Love is kind. Spanking constantly is not.

One might argue that spanking as a corrective measure is done out of love. At times, this may be true. But I think in general that people focus too much on the "I have to spank my kid or he's going to hell" mentality. They should really be focusing on the child's emotional needs. The goal is not to force everyone through the same mold of spanking but to raise up emotionally healthy and stable Christians.

Spanking doesn't work the same for every kid. Some will meekly submit; others will refuse to be corrected through that means. I think it's a good rule of thumb to stop spanking your child if you have to do it constantly. He isn't learning anything except how to be resentful. You have to find another means of punishment. I actually think that positive reinforcement is far better than spanking. For instance, say Bob has been in the habit of leaving his toys laying around and you're tired of it. You could threaten to spank him if he does it again or you could find a positive means to encourage him put his toys away, perhaps something like offering to take him to the park if he puts his toys away.

Some might argue that this is inconvenient and that it's so much easier to whip out a rod and spank him. That may be convenient now, but will it be later? Bob could live in the constant fear of being spanked and thus make sure he puts his toys away, or, when he's done playing with his toys, he could remember that something good happened when he did it before. It's kind of like training a dog. For a while, you have to constantly give positive reinforcement,  but after a time you don't really have to do anything. Just whistle and the dog comes. It has learned to love you because it links you to good things. Isn't it better to do that with your kids?

In doing this, you should make sure your child knows he is loved. This means not withholding your love when they behave badly but simply rewarding them for doing what is right.

Now, I don't entirely object to spanking. The big thing in my family was the frequency of those spankings. I think it's only permissible to spank a child in extreme cases. I don't know what exactly those cases should be, but I don't think they should be minor infractions. Forgetting to put toys away should not be punished with a spanking. The spanking is to be used so sparingly that a child is like, "I'm never doing that again." It should be so infrequently that it doesn't mar every day life.

If a child is spanked to much, he also becomes desensitized to spanking. Spanking - instead of being looked at as a horrible thing that only happens very occasionally when a child has done something very wrong -simply becomes a part of life. Nothing changes this way. The child just learns to cope with it. And, of course, constant spanking can also have the effect it had on me.

If you must spank your child, then make sure they know exactly what it is that they're not supposed to do. And don't be fickle about this. If you don't want doing something and you spank them, you need to make sure they're making the connection. Just telling them "no" next time should be adequate. But under no circumstances should you spank a child repeatedly for the same offense. By repeatedly I do mean repeatedly, not just three or four times but a bunch of times. If you find yourself doing that, then you need to switch tactics.

People go on and on about parenting methods to the point where it has almost become something to undertake academically. The big thing about parenting is this: you need to love your child and make sure they know that by whatever means. If this is the case, then your child will probably want to obey you. End of problem. People just like making things complicated and painful.

Thanksgiving

 It's always humbling for me to hear the things for which people are thankful. I feel bad for having many things that I don't give a second thought. People love comparing us to people in Africa, saying, "oh, look how much we have compared to them. We need to be more grateful." Although I think we need to be thankful for everything we have, I think there is a truer sense of thanksgiving in people who barely have anything than people who have a feast that is simply part of a tradition. People who expect much will only be happy if they receive greater than or equal to what they expect. The same is true for people who expect little. The difference is the expectations. And yet there seems to be a undercurrent of feeling in my church and many others that we are expected to be far more grateful than people who have less. This expectation is not founded in logic. People who have less are often more thankful for the little they receive than people who have much and also receive much.

Take, for instance, the poor African man who is on his last loaf of bread (or whatever they eat in Africa). Upon receiving a turkey for Thanksgiving, he will be ecstatic. His American counterpart will pay a trip to the local Wal-mart to purchase such a turkey without giving it a second thought. The difference is in the level of expectation. If the African man expects to starve, the turkey will come as a welcome relief. If the American man expects to pick up a turkey because he does it every year out of habit, then it will be just that: a habit. This doesn't make him a bad person for not being as grateful as the African man; it simply makes him normal.

I can remember my mom telling me that I needed to be grateful I had a bed. I felt guilty because I honestly didn't feel that grateful. I knew I should feel grateful. I even thanked God for my bed, though, perhaps without the proper sincerity. I've come to realize that not appreciating my bed like I should is normal. I was raised with a bed. I've never been without one. It's only natural that I look at it as just another part of life. 

But it is good to look around us and list all the things for which we are thankful. Take any one item, subtract it from your life, and imagine life without it. Often, we are forced to do this anyway due to power outages and natural disasters. These events can be beneficial in that respect. The point is to realize how many things you have that make your life easier. The list is long.Though, as I've explained, this long list does not mean that we should be more grateful.

 Here in America, we are focused on tradition, especially in reference to Thanksgiving. We have to have our turkey with all the trimmings, mashed potatoes, pumpkin pie and any number of dishes that families have included as their traditional Thanksgiving dishes. This sense of normalcy is healthy. In a world that dangerously fluctuates every day, having that one thing you can lean on for a sense of balance is stabilizing. 

Some people may feel that becoming entangled in tradition distracts from the goal of Thanksgiving. The goal of Thanksgiving, however, is, not to remember the pioneers and all that (though remembering them is good), but to recognize that for which we are thankful. What better time to realize that than when we're having a veritable feast? We surround ourselves with food, family, and games as a reminder of the good things in life, things for which we are thankful. We may encounter times in life when we see little to be thankful for, but not this time of year. This time of year we enjoy ourselves in remembrance of all the things with which we are blessed. 

Rules

In the course of our lives, we come across many rules, rules which we find annoying and cumbersome. Rules in general are used to guide a person's actions so that they can peacefully exist with other humans. As such, rules serve a vital function. However, I think people get lost in interpreting rules such as the ones in the Bible to the extent that they entirely miss the point of the rules themselves.

Man inherently knows what is evil and what is good. Thus, long lists of rules are unnecessary. However, God decided to interpret some of what we inherently know into some rules called the Ten Commandments. He did that because he is merciful, not because we don't know what to do. Then, as an act of further mercy, He wrote, or actually had Moses write, the book of Deuteronomy. I've read Deuteronomy and found it to be extremely meticulous, almost painfully so, in its descriptions of exactly what to do in every circumstance. I also noticed that a good portion of it is common sense. Jesus said that loving the Lord, and by extensions your neighbor, is the greatest commandment on which the law and the prophets hang, or something like that.

However, when people are interpreting laws and other similar things in the Bible, they seem to be missing one essential thing: they are missing that the application of all these laws and rules should simply be an outward manifestation of trying to love your neighbor as yourself.

From my observation, I think that many Christians, whether consciously or not, operate on the premise that they must figure out exactly what the Bible says to do in every situation so that they will be doing what God wants. Such devotion to studying the Bible that is the inevitable result of such a wish is still valuable. I'm not trying disparage the value of Bible study. The Bible has a wealth of information, accumulated over the course of about fifteen hundred years. Such a book is a marvel simply because it was written over such a long period of time by so many authors who ranged from fishermen to doctors. I think the Bible is an invaluable source of wisdom, but the single most important piece of wisdom in it is the commandment to love our neighbors as we love ourselves. All other aspects of the Bible are accumulated wisdom that enumerate the results when people loved their neighbors and when they didn't and what happened as a result in each case.

 It's so easy to rely on the Bible to guide in every circumstance because you can interpret it to mean almost anything you want. A group of people can all look at the same Bible verse and come away with many different interpretations. Naturally, there are people who will misinterpret the Bible just to justify their own purposes.Thus is why, to some degree, much of what the Bible says needs to be taken with a grain of salt. It was written a long time ago when traditions and customs were far different. The general message never changes but it's interpretation from society to society must. For instance, it's not acceptable to stone your child because he has disobeyed you like it was in biblical times. We just don't do that. There would be a lot of dead children if we did.

You can find a Bible verse that will justify almost anything now matter how heinous, depending on the way you interpret it. The Bible is an excellent book, but we are each born with an inherent sense of right and wrong that is even more excellent. No amount of Bible study will replace that. And it's also important to remember that all rules should be balanced with the commandment to love one another.

Just another industry

By some ill-luck, I was stuck having my pastor teach my Sunday school class one time. It was kind of weird. He didn't seem as confident as he should have been and the way he dealt with it was kind of weird too. I think he ended up saying something to the effect that he worked just for the big bucks. Perhaps the exact words were, "that's what I get paid the big bucks for," in response to someone admiring his erudition. Though intended as a joke, what he said couldn't be closer to the truth.The church has evolved from the body of believers that Christ established to an industry. (I do understand that the body of believers makes up Christ's church. I'm simply referring to church as we know it.)

Pastors are paid, some more than others, to fulfill what they profess to be their calling in life. I think they are missing something. They are servants of Christ, right? They are commanded to be Christ-like in all their behavior. As people who are supposed to be spiritual leaders, pastors especially should be setting an example for the rest of us. But what do they do? They turn teaching God's word and serving Him into a job. What's more, they accept payment for doing this and in some cases a lot of payment.

Christ's example of living a sinless live is impossible to follow, but his example of not being a paid preacher is not. He didn't live a sinless, abstemious life so that pastors hundreds of years later could grow rich preaching about Him. If He was thrown into a rage because he found "those who were selling oxen and sheep and doves and the moneychangers seated" in  the temple, then I think he would be upset about pastors leeching off their congregations for a living (John 2).

The Catholic church is an especially good example of the church or the pastor benefiting from the people in an unbiblical way. The Catholic church sells indulgences so that people can have their sins forgiven. Everything about this is wrong. God is the only one who can forgive sins. Period. The Catholic church is using indulgences as yet another way of leeching off the people.

Of course, not all churches are that bad. At my church, there are offering boxes for people to put there money. We don't do the plate thing (thank God!). And our former pastor has even preached a sermon about how we should not "give grudgingly or of necessity for God loves a cheerful giver." So, people know they don't HAVE to give.  But they still give plenty so that the pastor can be supported. But the pastor should be serving without having to be paid. It's not a sacrifice to be paid to preach. Or at least, it's not a monetary sacrifice.

Preaching has become a normal job, a job intended to entertain audiences. You'll notice that the big, entertaining churches are the ones that attract huge audiences. The reason for this is fairly obvious. People enjoy being entertained. Pastors in turn are forced to pick what they wish to be: crowd pleasers and well-paid or persons who are honest about he what they believe and consistent in their refusal of pay for a ministry that they are called by God to perform.

 In this respect, the church has become like any other industry. I really don't think this is what Christ intended when he established his church.

Auditioning

Something annoying happened at my church a few years ago. We had a special service all about church music. In this service, we were informed that anyone who wants to do special music has to audition. Well okay, those weren't the exact words. We needed to be listened to before we actually performed. I find this offensive.

Every person has a different degree of musical talent. It seems wrong to spot check them because that may make them feel like it's a competition. Performing church music shouldn't be a competition. The goal is to glorify the Lord. This doesn't have anything to do with talent. If someone feels led to sing or play something for the congregation, they should be allowed to do so regardless of how bad it may sound.

I know most people like listening to good music, so I can sort of understand why the church wants to screen music before hand. But is it worth possibly offending some people?

This new request to hear special music in advance is weird because some of the church musicians don't even perform that well themselves. Shouldn't they be "screened" too? It seems unfair to let regular musicians who play badly continue to play and to make those who wish to play an occasional special audition.

Suffice to say this: church worship is not a supposed to be a concert; it's supposed to be a time for glorifying the Lord. Anything that takes away from that goal should be eliminated.

The dangers of smoking

That smoking is detrimental to one's health is well-established. But I think there's something more dangerous. You see, there are many people who believe that there is something morally wrong with smoking. And apparently, there are even people who believe that something about smoking makes one an unbeliever. I guess the big thing, though, is that people, especially church people, generally look down on smoking. But I think the stigma attached to smoking is unfounded.

That smoking can be detrimental to one's health is well-established. Multiple lung diseases and other health problems have been linked to smoking. However, these problems because of smoking generally occur because of excessive smoking. Someone who smokes a cigar every month or every week will probably not suffer the negative effects of smoking. Thus, smoking is only detrimental to one's health when it is excessive.

 Another common objection to smoking is the smell. Once again, someone will probably not smell bad unless they smoke excessively. Besides that, who's to say that smoke smells bad? I think some cigars and cigarettes stink, but I also think that some smell fine, even good. It's all a matter of opinion. If someone chooses to smoke occasionally because they enjoy it and enjoy the smell, there's really nothing wrong with that.

 I do understand, of course, that constant smoking is usually indicative of an addiction to nicotine. Such an addiction is certainly not good. However, it is simply evidence of a deeper problem. I have heard many smokers say that smoking helps them deal with the stress in life. Everyone has a way of dealing with stress. Smokers have found their way. It may not be healthy, but it's what they know to do. Smoking is their natural response to stress and this should not be looked down on.
                                                                                                                                                                    I can think of many parents who are terrified of smoking because they're afraid their children will grow up to be smokers. I remember finding a cigarette in my oldest brothers drawer. I was terrified, which says a lot about the way I was trained to look at cigarettes and smokers. I immediately notified my parents. They had a meeting with him about it. In retrospect, I think he was just trying to make them nervous. I know now that he is far more careful if he wishes to keep something a secret. He was testing them. They didn't pass.

Parents in general should not have to worry about their kids becoming addicted to nicotine because people generally grow addictions as a coping mechanism. If children have already developed healthy coping mechanisms, then they are far less likely to succumb to a smoking addiction.

Several years ago when I was in high school, I bought my first cigar from a fellow classmate. For some reason I thought something bad would happen, so I sealed it in a envelope and hid it. But as I looked at that little cigar around which so controversy has been centered, I realized that cigar are not evil. They're not even a problem. The use of cigarettes, like the use of anything, can and is abused. Some people have looked past that and treated the symptoms while ignoring the disease.