The Infallible Law

I am a person who looks at the world as black and white. Something is either right, or it is wrong. For me, what determines what is right or wrong are the consequences, not the action/choice itself. At this point, I’m not sure how accurate that view is, but it has led me to contemplate right/wrong, sin, and the importance of God’s law. The problem for me is this: when I look at sin, I don’t really comprehend what is wrong with it other than it will bring me death, eventually. I might know that it’s wrong because of being taught that it is, or maybe my conscience tells me, but I don’t really grasp what’s wrong with it. I’m still not certain that I fully do, but I believe that God is trying to enlighten me.

It all begins with God. Everything does, right? God is a being that I don’t believe we will ever fully understand. We simply can’t. As created beings, we have a really hard time wrapping our minds around someone who wasn’t created. That being said, we can still learn a lot about Him, and He wants us to know Him. He has told us about Himself. He is love (1 John 4:8), gracious and compassionate (Exodus 33:19), and just. This is His character, the very essence of who He is.

Now, think about the Ten Commandments. What is the essence of the Decalogue? Jesus summed all Ten Commandments up by saying that the first is to love God, and the second is to love your neighbor as yourself (Matthew 22:37-39). The first four commandments direct the human being to love and honor God, to remember what He has done and that He alone is God. The last six commandments direct the human being to love and respect his/her neighbor, not only outwardly, but in the mind/heart as well. If you compare this law with the character of God, it is very similar. The law is not a list of don’ts. It is the expression of who God is, and it is a safeguard against destruction.

When you buy a new car or cell phone, it comes with a user manual. This is very important because these objects will only work well when certain conditions are met. In order for a car to run properly and safely, it needs fuel, working brakes, headlights, and a steering wheel. If these components of the car are broken or lacking, the car will not run or it will become hazardous very quickly. In a similar way, cell phones need a power source to be useful. They need a case to protect them from damage, and if they are dropped in water, they will be ruined. It is apparent from these examples that man-made objects function because of rules, or laws. When those rules are broken or disregarded, the objects soon malfunction.

Does this pattern appear in nature? Well, imagine that one morning you wake up and decide not to breathe anymore. It wouldn’t take very long for your body to shut down because oxygen is essential for human beings to live. What would happen if the law of gravity no longer existed? Earth and all its inhabitants would be in trouble. Gravity is what keeps us on this planet, and what keeps the planets orbiting around each other. It is clear that there are laws in nature that keep the earth and those living in it from falling apart or malfunctioning.

In case it wasn’t clear before now, I believe that God created the world. This belief is very important when looking at the concept of right/wrong and sin. When you think about the character of God and that it is expressed in His law, and then attach this to the creation of the earth and all its inhabitants, sin becomes clearer, as does the importance of preserving the law.

When God created the earth, He created it on the foundation of His law. In nature, every living thing relies on another to live and function. At one point, I became frustrated with mosquitos and wanted to know what possible function they served on this planet. As it turns out, they are food for some creatures. Human beings exhale CO₂ which feeds the plants around them, and in return the trees produce oxygen which is essential to human beings. Human beings also thrive on social relationships and love. They need social interaction, not just to receive love and acceptance, but to give it as well. Without a law of love as the foundation of all life on this planet, how would this interdependence happen?

Okay, remember the car and the cell phone? Remember that if you don’t follow the rules in the manuals, they won’t function, or they won’t function well? If the earth is built on God’s law of love, then that law is essential for life on this planet. The moment one creature decides not to depend on another, and not to give to another, the whole ecosystem will be disrupted. Chaos and devastation of the natural world will ensue. This is what happened. This is what sin is. It is breaking the law of life.

I am a created being. Whether I like it or not, I was created with certain rules to be followed. I cannot breathe under water, not matter how much I may try. My lungs will fill and I will suffocate. If I fill my body with too much sugar and fat, and not enough fiber and nutrients, eventually my organs will fail. It will prove too much for them, and I will die. It is the same with God’s law of love. I was created to worship. All human beings need to worship someone or something. Some worship work, others television, others religion. When we look at God’s law, we find someone to worship, and He is someone that is truly worthy of it. I was also created to be social, and to love my fellow human beings. I have enough experience being selfish that I know how it sucks the life out of you. So many people are hurting and dying because they don’t know that they are loved. They are too focused on their own pain to see the love that others have for them, or to see the need that they could fill.

So why couldn’t God just change the law? Why is the law so important that someone had to die when it was broken? Again, I don’t know as we will ever fully comprehend God, but there is such beauty in Him and in His law, that I don’t know why anyone would want Him to change it (other than our selfish hearts desiring it). When Jesus came to this earth, He didn’t come to destroy the law. He came to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17, 18). The law was considered so important and infallible by God, that He sent His Son, His only Son, to fulfill the requirement of death for its transgression. He also fulfilled the law by living His whole life according to it, giving humanity an example. A while ago, I pondered what Jesus said, asking why He didn’t come to destroy the law. Here is the answer given to me:

God is unchangeable, and so is His law. If this were not the case, then humanity probably would no longer exist. When Jesus came, He established the law. He showed how essential that law was to fulfilled and joyous living. If the law could be changed, then God would not be reliable. He would either not care about His creation, or He would be a doormat. Something that I am learning lately is the concept of love. I am learning that it is not what the movies portray it as, but it is something that looks out for the good of someone, even if they don’t like what is done. This is what God does, and this is why His law is one of love, and why it is important that it not change. He created all of us, He knows what will make us truly happy and fulfilled, and that is what He desires for us. We can’t see what He sees, and so we fight against Him, thinking that He is being cruel or indifferent. In the end, though, if we will trust Him, we will see that He and His law never let us down. 

Intercultural Competence

I have grown up in a very sheltered and privileged environment. I have lived in several parts of the United States, yet I have never left the safety of my home country. Even in the broad American culture, I am not always certain how to act. I was raised in a Christian home and my parents tried to shelter my brother and me from the influences of mainstream society. I also have a very introverted personality and am more comfortable spending time alone than dealing with other people. As I reflect on these things, I wish to a certain extent that I had not closed myself off from the rest of the world. I am an introvert and will always need my alone time, but I am still a citizen of this world. It is harder for me to learn now how to be a responsible and considerate citizen. Nonetheless, I believe that every experience in life can be used to grow, and this semester my mind has been made aware of the complexity of living in this world.

In life, people play many different roles. I am a student, a teacher, a cashier, a daughter, a sister, etc. In each of these roles, how I approach multi-cultural settings may differ. At the same time, I believe that there are some principles that should inform any intercultural communication situation.  

When Peter Nwosu came to America, he wasn’t sure what to expect or how to view African Americans. His perception of them had been molded by media portrayals to the point where he was more fearful of them than of white Americans. As he spent more time in America, this view changed, but he had to deal with new challenges. He had to adjust to the expectations and norms of the society around him. In one instance, he fell down some icy stairs. He expected his friend to say he was sorry and to help him up, but his friend did not do this. Instead, he asked if he was okay. Nwosu had to learn to work through these differences in culture. When talking about another misunderstanding he had with a fellow student, he says, “One of the major indicators of intercultural growth when one confronts a cultural problem must be a willingness on the part of those involved to engage in genuine dialogue, which helps to sort out the cultural differences that created the miscommunication,” (Nwosu, 2006, p. 126). As a friend or acquaintance of someone from another culture, I believe that it is important to be open about the cultural differences. In my own experience, I have only had a handful of friends/acquaintances from other cultures. When I interact with them, they are very willing to bend to my culture, so I rarely think about what their expectations are. As I look at the issues that we have discussed in class, however, I want to be more aware and willing to accommodate those from other cultures. As a friend/acquaintance, it is important to be open to other cultures, but to also be open about one’s own culture. Help the person to adjust and learn what the surrounding society expects and some of the reasons why.

Some groups do not mind being separate from the mainstream culture. Unlike Nwosu, they are content to maintain their own culture and only interact with the dominant culture when it is necessary. For example, the Amish communities are close-knit and refrain from using many of the same conveniences as mainstream America. Their lives are characterized by simplicity, hard work, and strong family and religious ties. Despite their separation from American culture, they dwell in the nation and are accepted as citizens. As members of the dominant culture, then, how ought we to respond to them? Many look at them in awe and fascination, some even envying their simply ways and strong values. I myself have long idealized them, believing that I would enjoy their lifestyle if it wasn’t for my disagreement with some of their beliefs. At the same time, I know deep down that I am too attached to certain modern conveniences. How should I react to this kind of culture, then? Am I truly being inter-culturally competent just because I like the culture? What is my responsibility towards the Amish, and other separatist cultures, as a member of main-stream society? I believe that it is my role to represent these cultures as truthfully as I can. It is my role to learn about them, and when I interact with them, to look at them as human beings just like me. Any culture that I am not used to will of course hold some fascination for me. It cannot be helped. The more I learn about it, however, the more I can come to appreciate and respect it as not just an object of fascination, but as someone’s identity and value system.  

In the film Arranged, several intercultural issues are presented through the experiences of the main characters, Rochel and Nasira. The two women not only had to endure the ignorance of their supervisor, but they had to deal with their impending arranged marriages and the conflicts which arose in their families. There are several roles addressed in this film: friend, teacher, student, family member, co-worker, and supervisor. I have already talked about the role of friends, and in the film the idea of openness about cultures is shown in the friendship between Rochel and Nasira. What about the other roles? I teach ESL students, and I both of my teachers this semester are from other countries. What is my role as a student and a teacher, then? In the film, the students were reflecting the attitudes of the adults around them. They didn’t understand how Rochel and Nasira could be friends. There was one student, however, who didn’t seem worried about this at all. He was more concerned about having a nice teacher to work with him. I think his attitude is one I would like to have, and one I would like my students to have. It is important to not see people according to the stereotypes applied to them, but to see them simply as human beings. In the case of the family member role, the film presents an interesting dilemma. Rochel and Nasira were happy to be friends, but their friendship could have had some serious consequences for Rochel’s family and her own marriage prospects. I do not know what would be best in a situation like this. I believe that it is good to be open to other cultures, but if you come from a culture in which association with someone of an “enemy” culture will soil your reputation and that of your family, how do you fight against that? It creates the risk of alienation from your family and community.

Though a person might approach intercultural communication differently depending on the role, in the end the important thing is that the person looked at the other as a human being, another citizen in this world. This is the thread that binds the different roles together. It truly comes down to the Golden Rule. If I treat others as I desire to be treated, I will see them as I see myself. In her recounting of her experiences during the Holocaust, Elane Geller talks about the responsibility of each individual. She admits that it may seem like one person cannot make a difference, yet she also expresses the need for each person to speak up against injustice. It may be because of growing up in an individualistic society, but I have a hard time seeing myself as a citizen of the whole world and being responsible for what happens in it. Still, I can see the wisdom what Geller talks about. I am a citizen of this world, whether I see it that way or not. I can join Cain and ask, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” or I can love my neighbor as myself. When I see injustice, in any setting, I can do my part in making others aware of the problem. When more people become aware, the voice gets louder, and it is harder to ignore the problem.

Geller states, “I speak as a human being to other human beings of all creeds, colors, and religions,” (Geller, 2006, p. 182). She also says, “More important than everyone liking each other and being friends is the goal of tolerance and decency toward every human being,” (Geller, 2006, p. 188). Does it take being dehumanized to truly understand what it means to be a human being? There are many stereotypes, ethnocentric attitudes, and instances of prejudice and discrimination. We have many advances in science and technology, and we see ourselves as civilized, yet we often treat other human beings as lesser, sometimes without even realizing we are doing so. In recent years, Islamophobia has grown rampant. We have stopped seeing the human beings who live by this religion. All we see are terrorists. What does this do? It shows that we do not believe them to be the same level of human that we are. Conflicts arise among mainstream American society and the separatist group of Hasidic Jews because one side generalizes the other as a poisoning influence. When these stereotypes, prejudices, and ethnocentric attitudes arise, what can I do? My only answer is to return to what Geller said. The important thing in any intercultural situation, and the only solution to the problem of racism and prejudice, is to see every human being as a human being. It is to know that I am human being, and to treat others and I would like to be treated.

References

Geller, E. N. (2006). The Holocaust and its lessons: A survivor’s story. In M.W. Lustig & J. Koester (Eds.), Among Us: Essays on Identity, Belonging, and Intercultural Competence (pp. 182-189). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Nwosu, P. O. (2006). Cultural problems and intercultural growth: My American journey. In M. W. Lustig & J. Koester (Eds.), Among Us: Essays on Identity, Belonging, and Intercultural Competence (pp. 118-127). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

The Breakfast Club: Culture of the American High School

John Hughes Jr. was born in 1950 in Lansing, MI. When he was 13, he and his family moved to Illinois and lived close to Chicago. He graduated from high school in 1968 and then went to the University of Arizona in Tucson. He did not finish at the university, but dropped out and became an ad copywriter. He began to write stories and screenplays around this time. In 1984, he began directing a series of movies with a high school theme. His first film was Sixteen Candles, a movie about a teenage girl whose birthday is forgotten in the chaos of her sister’s wedding preparations. Hughes would go on to direct and produce several more movies, including Ferris Bueller’s Day Off and the Home Alone series. Hughes died in 2009.

Hughes’ second movie, The Breakfast Club, came out in 1985 and is set in 1984. The movie is simple, being set in a high school on a Saturday, with only five teenagers and two adult main characters. Do not let this simplicity fool you, however. The film presents many themes that can be examined from several different perspectives. It presents a look at American culture as it pertains to high school dynamics, as well as adult-teenager relationships. Interwoven in these broad themes are pictures of class differences and issues of divorce and abuse.

The movie begins with each teenager being dropped off at the school. We are immediately introduced to the relationship – or lack thereof – of the teenagers and their parents. After they get settled in the library for detention, the principal gives them instructions for the day. They are not to move or talk. He instructs each of them to write an essay for him describing who they think they are. Though they do not work on this essay throughout the movie, the viewer discovers the answer through their dialogue and journey to discovering it themselves.

The teenagers come from different backgrounds and hang out with different groups in the school. Claire is the popular and conceited rich girl, Andrew is the over-pressured jock, Brian is the smart one, Allison is the crazy and neglected loner, and John Bender is the angry troublemaker. Through these characters is shown the diversity of personalities of all human beings, but they also demonstrate the values of society through their descriptions of their lives and why they were in detention.

Claire comes from a home in which her parents use her to get back at each other. If one parent says to do one thing, then the other will tell her to do the opposite. She also believes that she has no choice about who she hangs out with. She is rich and popular, and feels pressured to hang out with a certain crowd.

Andrew is an athlete whose father pressures him to do well so he can get a scholarship. He does something cruel to another student in an attempt to impress his father. When he is dropping him off at detention, the father sympathizes with Andrew, his only complaint being that he got caught. Andrew feels pressured and invisible, and he realizes how cruel his actions were.

Brian is smart and quiet, bowing to the wishes of others most of the time. He too is pressured by his parents to get good grades. Though Bender makes fun of what he thinks is Brian’s perfect life, the truth is that Brian felt so pressured by his parents that he became suicidal when he failed a project for shop class. This pressure is seen at the beginning of the movie when he is dropped off by his mother. She orders him to find a way to do homework even though he explains he is not supposed to during detention.

When Allison arrives at the high school, she gets out of the car and tries to say goodbye to whoever dropped her off, but they drive off quickly. She goes into the library and sits in the back, turning away from everyone else. Her hair covers her face and she is dressed in black. She does not speak until the middle of the movie. When she does, the viewer becomes aware that she is a compulsive liar and desperately wants someone to care about her.

Finally, John Bender arrives at the high school by walking in front of Allison’s car, looking straight ahead. He is the troublemaker, smoking pot and listening to heavy metal. He stirs up the other teenagers, making fun of them and acting like he doesn’t care what they think of him. Throughout the movie, he and the principal butt heads, with the principal eventually threatening him. By the end of the movie, he still maintains a tough façade, but the viewer knows that he is really just as vulnerable as the rest of the teenagers.

Each of these teenagers had a different reason for being in detention, a different home life, and a different personality. At the end of the movie, however, it is clear that they are very similar. This film portrays the lives of teenagers in the 1980’s as being characterized by a dissonance between them and their parents and teachers. Each of the five teenagers in the movie feels misunderstood, ignored, and abused. For someone watching this movie from another culture, it would appear that American high school culture is characterized by troubled and rebellious teenagers and unsympathetic adults. There is only one adult in this movie who is portrayed positively: the janitor. When Bender mocks him, he takes it in stride and essentially speaks his language right back to him. He is not threatening or disrespectful, but he does not allow the teenagers to get to him.

Through this movie, Hughes presents American high school culture to the viewer. He raises issues about cliques, parental pressure, and abuse of authority. Through the reconciliation of the teenagers, he also shows the value of tolerance and equality. In the final scenes of the movie, Brian writes the required essay, but he writes it for all five teenagers. He tells the principal that he sees them as he wants to see them, but that they have realized that they are all “a brain, an athlete, a basket case, a princess, and a criminal.” This gives the message that though everyone is different, we can appreciate those differences, while also focusing on what we have in common.

References:

Cieply, M. (2009, August 6). John Hughes, Who Captured the Lives of Teenagers in the 1980s, Dies at 59. The New York Times.  Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/07/movies/07hughesobit.html?_r=0. 

John Hughes. (2015). The Biography.com website. Retrieved 04:07, Mar 29, 2015, from http://www.biography.com/people/john-hughes-476258.

Tanen, N., & Hughes, J. (Producers), & Hughes, J. (Director). (2008). The Breakfast club [Motion picture]. United States: Universal Studios. 

Framing American Indians CTP #2

Imagine that you are meeting someone for the first time. What things do you focus on? How they are dressed? Their accent? The color of their skin? I don’t want to speak for all human beings, but I will speak for myself. When I meet someone for the first time, I make a judgment. In fact, I do this even when I don’t meet the person, but see them. Without even knowing anything about them, I decide whether they are nice or stuck up, smart or unintelligent. Though I am only speaking of my own experience, I do believe that many people share in this experience. I would like to focus on what influences the judgments we make about people, specifically the judgments we make about Native Americans. I have had to take a step back and really look at my own attitudes about them as I have read the chapters and articles for class. It is too easy to believe that I am not doing them any harm, that I am respecting them and empathizing with them, when in truth I have no idea what they have gone through or are going through now.

In our readings for class, we have been introduced to the concept of “framing”. I have a rather difficult time defining this concept, though I believe I understand what it is. When the media in a particular society portrays people or ideas, it uses certain images and words to communicate beliefs about the people or idea being portrayed. For example, if I write a book about someone that I look up to, I will use words and stories that show this person in a positive light. Then, when people are exposed to the picture created by the words and images presented, they accept them and pass them on. In their article, “Gambling with Identity: Self-Representation of American Indians on Official Tribal Websites,” David Cullier and Susan Ross explain framing, saying, “Framing theory conceives of meaning as socially constructed through a reciprocal, interactive, cyclical process of communication,” (p. 202). In another article by Autumn Miller and Susan Ross, “They Are Not Us: Framing of American Indians by the Boston Globe,” they quote another author, saying, “Stephen Reese…has defined frames as ‘organizing principles that are socially shared and persistent over time, that work symbolically to meaningfully structure the social world’,” (p. 246). Frames help us as a society to look at the different groups in the world, forming beliefs about them that might be good or bad.

There are several types of frames used to portray American Indians. Miller and Ross identified six in their article: generic outsider, degraded Indian, good/bad Indian, historic relic, and voiced participant. The generic outsider frame, as is indicated by the name, portrays all Indians as part of an outside group. They are not shown as part of the mainstream American society. The degraded Indian frame portrays the Indian as poor and pitiable. The good Indian frame portrays Indians as highly moral and respectful. The bad Indian frame portrays them as out of control, rash, and lawless. The historic relic frame depicts Indians as coming from another era, as if they are parts of a museum exhibition. Finally, the voiced participant frame depicts Indians in modern society. It shows them being active in social issues and leading the governance of the tribes. Some of these frames may not appear to be bad, such as the good Indian frame or the historic relic frame. The problem with each of these frames, however, aside from the last one, is that they are created by mainstream society’s judgments of American Indian people. They put American Indians into boxes rather than allowing them to express who they are and to be respected as equal human beings.

These frames are often used when movies and documentaries are made about the American Indians. I recently watched the movie Dances with Wolves, which stars Kevin Costner as Lieutenant Dunbar. This movie is set around the Civil War years, beginning in 1863. Lieutenant Dunbar attempts suicide to avoid losing his leg, but ends up actually being honored because he broke a stalemate between the two groups of soldiers. He chooses to go to the frontier because he wants to see it before it is gone. He has no firsthand knowledge of what the Indians are like, so when he first encounters one, he is frightened. With time and patience, however, he builds close relationships with the band of Sioux Indians close to his post, eventually abandoning his White identity. There are two groups of Indians in this movie, the Sioux and the Pawnee. There are multiple frames being used to portray these Indians. First, because this film is set in a historical period, the Indians are portrayed as historic relics. They existed long ago and were eventually driven out by the flood of White men and progress. Their ways were old fashioned and would not fit into the world that was fast closing in upon them. Secondly, there is a contrast in the movie between the good Indian frame and the bad Indian frame. The Sioux are portrayed as good Indians. They are quiet, close-knit, highly moral, and respectful of the Earth and its resources. The Pawnee, on the other hand, are portrayed as bad Indians. They do not respect human life, make war upon the Sioux, and act as trackers for the Whites who are searching for the Sioux band. I have seen this movie several times, since I was a fairly young child, and I always thought that it was a good movie. After reading for class, however, and looking at it from the perspective of the different frames, I find myself wondering if this movie is as good as I thought it was. While the Sioux Indians were depicted as good, they were also depicted as weak. Lieutenant Dunbar has to come to their rescue by leaving their band because he has become a threat through his status as a traitor. He rescues a Sioux boy during a buffalo hunt because he is the only one with a gun. The frames that are used in this movie subtly create beliefs about the Whites and the Indians that uphold the division of the two groups.

As mainstream society is exposed to these frames and they accept the picture of the American Indians which is presented to them, stereotypes are created and then fed back into the media. Indian children who are exposed to these stereotypes are taught that they are not a part of mainstream society. Their heritage is old-fashioned and does not fit into the fast paced and progressive way of Americans. Instead of teaching them that they are worthy of respect because they are human beings, they are taught that they don’t belong. This could have a couple different outcomes. The children may embrace their heritage because that is where they find a sense of belonging, and reject the mainstream society, widening the divide between the two groups. They may give up and accept society’s view and become lazy, drunkards, victims, or savages. Some, as shown through the voiced participant frame, may stand up and fight the stereotypes.  

The concept of framing and the articles we have read for class have helped me to look closer at things I thought were harmless, such as brand names like Dodge Cherokee. These things may be harmless, but would we notice if they weren’t? We are taught about the American Indians from the different frames presented, and unless we have actual interactions with them and are exposed to their true circumstances, it is easy to just accept what we are taught. American Indians are just as human as the rest of us, and though we may see something as harmless, the respectful thing to do would be to acknowledge their rights and opinions about it. When we do not do this, we continue the injustice that began long ago. 

References:

Cullier, D. & Ross, S. D. (2007). Gambling with identity: Self-representation of American Indians on official tribal websites. The Howard Journal of Communications, 18 197-219.

Miller, A. & Ross, S. D. (2004). They are not us: Framing of American Indians by the Boston Globe.The Howard Journal of Communications, 15 245-259.

Musings on a Mysterious God

Sometimes I wonder why God is so patient with me. I also wonder if He is laughing at me right now.

I prayed a prayer this morning asking God to help me go to dance class this evening. I hadn't gone the past two weeks and wanted to return to it. Well, as the day went on and I got busy, I eventually decided I didn't want to go. I had four chapters to read for class tomorrow and really didn't want to go out again. Thus, I made up my mind that I would stay home.

Ha! Silly me. How could I honestly believe that that would actually happen? Don't I know God well enough by now to know that He somehow changes my mind without my seeming consent? I'm not saying He forced me to go, but He has some mysterious methods of getting me to go places. There are Sabbaths when I don't comprehend how in the world He got me to church. Yet, when He does it, it is always a blessing.

I went tonight and danced for the first hour. People were happy to see me and I got to advertise the program that I am in charge of in my ESL department. And, most importantly, in going I was reminded of just how powerful God is. To be honest, I was semi-annoyed with Him. You know, the kind of annoyance where you're not really mad, just can't believe that someone talked you into doing something. He is a mystery, but a good one.

You Can Never Have Too Much

It's amazing how much stuff I have acquired in my short life. You know how people say, "You can never have too much _____"? Well, there are actually very few things I would put in that blank. Sure, I like to have a lot of yarn and a lot of books, lots of CDs and DVDs, and let's not forget the massive amounts of pillows/blankets/animals to cover my bed. Does that mean I can't have too much of these items? Absolutely not. I know this because I move periodically, and every time I have moved lately I have gotten rid of a box or two of stuff. It feels like it doesn't even dent the pile. There is no way that I use everything I have in my room, and if it takes me a year just to unpack because I don't know where to put it all, I think I have reached the level of Too Much.

Here are some things I would put in that blank:

Hugs (I need to work on this one.)

Baby giggles (Cutest things ever.)

Encouraging words (Others need them too. Instead of seeing the negative, try to think of something encouraging. )

Prayer (Imagine what God would do if we asked Him.)

These are just a few, but as you can see, they aren't things. All of the stuff that I have to sort through every time I move only frustrates me and makes me wish I could throw it all away and start over. The things that I can't have too much of, however, are things that I can have every day and they don't cause clutter.

Have a clutter free day and hug someone!

Failure

How easy it is to fall back into old ways. I feel like I was never really free of them. I have grown up learning about grace, repentance, salvation, yet I seem to be unable to truly grasp these concepts. I obviously "enjoy" sinful things, but I also know that they bring misery. Why am I so stubborn about doing things that harm me?

It all starts with food. Seriously. The moment I indulge in something edible is the moment I start down the slippery path to destruction. It may start earlier, but that's the moment that seals the deal. Lately I have become even more lazy about cooking. I eat out more than I should and buy food that I can prepare quickly, food that has no nutritional value but tastes great. They say the mind and body are connected and what we eat affects the strength of our brain. I am sure this is true, but I think the major factor is that I make one choice that I know is bad for me. Why not make some more?

I feel trapped by my own stubbornness, like I will never want salvation bad enough. I let go once before and God worked in my life as I had never seen Him do before, but I can't seem to return to that mindset. I am constantly reminded that I've been there before and have come back to my old ways. Will I ever stop this horrible cycle?